Gujarat High Court
Jiteshbhai Maganbhai Ukani vs State Of Gujarat on 18 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/20614/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 20614 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
JITESHBHAI MAGANBHAI UKANI & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ANSHIN DESAI, SR. ADVOCATE with MR.NANDISH H THACKAR(7008)
for the petitioners
MS DHARA SHAH for MR SHIVANG M SHAH(5916) for the Respondent(s)
No. 2
MR SOHAM JOSHI, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 18/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. It is a petition filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "the Code"), whereby the petitioners having been arraigned as accused in Criminal Case No.152 of 2017 challenges issuance of process by the learned CJM, Rajkot for the offences punishable u/s 500 of the IPC.
Page 1 of 22 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 23 22:48:00 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/20614/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined
2. The fact which outlined the dispute between the parties and leading to filing up the present petition, are as under:-
2.1 The complainant got admission of his son in the school of the petitioners in June-2015 by paying six months fee of the first semester by cheque.
2.2 That on 08/08/2015, the complainant was called by the school and told to deposit the advance cheque of the second semester fee. Upon asking for explanation of advance cheque, no satisfactory reply was given by the petitioners and in turn, the complainant was asked to withdraw the admission. Even, the petitioners denied to give it in writing.
2.3 That on 01/09/2015, the complainant was called in person by the accused no.3 and accused no.2 and 3 again demanded the advance cheque, or to withdraw the admission and on 02/09/2015, the complainant was informed by the letter that his son's admission is canceled. In pursuance thereof, Leaving Certificate of complainant's son was sent through Reg.A.D. on 16/09/2015, which the complainant received on 18/09/2015.
2.4 Therefore, the complainant gave complaint to the District Education Officer on 03/09/2015 and the said complaint was heard on 01/10/2015 and the District Education Officer passed an order in favour of the complainant on 03/10/2015. The complainant has also given a written application to the Malaviyanagar Police Station also Page 2 of 22 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 23 22:48:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/20614/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined on 18/09/2015.
2.5 Upon the aforestated order, the Administrator and Principal of the school started subjecting to mental harassment to complainant's son and he was made sit aloof from his class and he was deprived of his study and therefore, the complainant had given statement in Mota Mava Chowkey of Malaviyanagar Police Station on 05/10/2015.
2.6 Thereafter, a complaint was filed against the complainant in the beginning of October-2015 and in context of the said complaint, Mr. Jadeja, ASI of Malaviyanagar and other police staff Ashokbhai Kalak came to complainant's office situated at Jalaram-2 on 08/10/2015 and the complainant was taken in to the said car and produced before the PI of Malaviyanagar Police Station and thereafter, the complainant was arrested there. Next day, the complainant was produced in the Mamlatdar Office (South) near P.D. Malaviya College and thereafter, the complainant was released on bail.
2.7 Bearing grudge towards the above entire incident, on 13/10/2015, the school, the school administrator and the Principal sent a pamphlet with complainant's son alongwith a two-lined letter without addressing the date or name and on the same day, a notice was published in the newspapers 'Sandesh' and Divya Bhaskar', and on 14/10/2015 in newspaper 'Sanjh Samachar' and on 16/10/2015 in newspaper 'Gujarat Samachar' and in the said notice, it was mentioned about complainant's character and used defamatory language Page 3 of 22 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 23 22:48:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/20614/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined and therefore, the complainant filed aforestated Criminal Case.
In which, the learned trial Court has issued process against the petitioners.
2.8 Hence, present petition.
3. Learned senior advocate Mr. Anshin Desai assisted by learned advocate, Mr. Nandish Thackar for the petitioners. would submit that issuance of process by the learned CJM for the offence punishable under section 500 of the IPC is gross abuse of process and is in ignorance of the exception 1,4 and 9 of section 499 of the IPC. He would further submit that imputation levelled against the complainant are no less than reality and truth, and therefore, this imputation cannot be treated as a defamatory statement made by the petitioners. He would further submit that the root of the dispute between the parties is different than what is canvassed in the complaint. He would submit that wife of the complainant intended to serve as a teacher in the Rajkot Public School (in short "the School"), however her request was denied by the management of the school. That was one of the grudge kept by the complainant in his mind. He would further submit that the grudge of the complainant expanded since his ward was denied studying in this school on the ground of various complaints made by the teachers of the school about the conduct of the ward of the complainant. He would further submit that the complaints were made before the DEO by both the parties and ultimately, a decision is arrived at in favour of the complainant and the DEO directed the petitioners to take Page 4 of 22 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 23 22:48:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/20614/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined back the living certificate of the ward issued by it.
3.1 Learned Senior counsel would further submit that the petitioners were ready and willing to take the ward of the complainant to the school, however, re-admission was not materialzed, as the ward has taken admission at some other place. He would further submit that the complainant took the issue to the High Court by filing SCA No. 9100 2016. The coordinate bench of this court believed that there is no cause exist to maintain such petition, as it lacks credence, and therefore petition was dismissed with cost of Rs.2500/-.
3.2 Referring to page 121, 122 and 123, learned senior advocate would submit that a public notice was issued by the school in a daily newspaper stating the truth that complainant and one Mr.Darshitbhai were arrested by the police pursuant to the complaint made by the the petitioners and they were released on bail on next day. He would further submit that the words stated in the news items, if are taken on its face value, they being a truth, fell in exception 1 and 4 of section 499 of the IPC and does not constitute any offence. He would further submit that the learned trial court was required to go through the exceptions of section 499 of the IPC before issuance of process, but the learned trial Court, without referring to other facts, and even without referring to the exceptions of Section 499 of the IPC, by cryptic and unreasoned order, issued process against the petitioners. He would further submit that the learned trial court was required to see that a revengeful idea has been given shape of litigation by the complainant, which does not constitute defamatory statement within the Page 5 of 22 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 23 22:48:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/20614/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined meaning of section 499 of the IPC.
3.3 Upon above submissions, learned senior advocate Mr. Anshin Desai requests the court to allow this petition and to quash the issuance of process as well as the proceedings of criminal case.
4. Per contra, learned advocate Ms Dhara Shah appearing for the private respondent took this court through various documents on record and submitted that the learned trial court has considered all relevant documents at the time of issuance of process. The son of the complainant was forced to leave the school. His leaving certificate was also issued, but since the DEO intervened in the dispute pursuant to the application filed by the complainant, the school was forced to take back the ward of the complainant. She would further submit that taking grudge of this aspect, a false complaint was filed before the Police Commissioner by the petitioners and thereafter it has been published with oblique motive in the daily newspaper, which is circulated in public to tarnish image of the complainant and his friend. She would further submit that the language used in the public notice are completely defamatory. She would further submit that the allegation levelled in this public notice indicates that the complainant as well as one Mr. Darshitbhai have taken the school in ransom. She would further submit that even the word "Kadva Patel" was purposively used to defame the complainant and his ally. She would further submit that the language of the public notice further states that the complainant and his ally were arrested and kept in lock-up for Page 6 of 22 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 23 22:48:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/20614/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined overnight and released on bail only on the next morning. She would further submit that thus, the statements made through public notice by the petitioners are purposefully stated and circulated to defame the complainant and his ally. She would further submit that the contention raised by the petitioners that exception 1 and 4 of section 499 of the IPC applies to the case would be a subject matter of trial.
4.1 Upon above submissions, learned advocate, Ms. Dhara Shah requests to strike down the petition.
5. Learned APP submits that it is a private dispute between two part parties, and therefore, the court may examine the facts of the case and pass necessary orders.
6. Having heard learned advocates for both the sides and considering the documents produced on the record, the solitary question arose for consideration is that whether or not the public notice issued by the petitioners at page 121, 122 and 123 prima facie established defamatory statement against the complainant and fell within the mischief of section 499 of the IPC having punishment in section 500 of the IPC? The residuary question arose that whether exception to section 499 of the IPC applies and can be taken into consideration at the time of issuance of process by the learned trial court as well as by this court at the time of hearing the petition for quashment. Let address second question first.
7. In the recent pronouncement in case of M/s.Iveco Magirus Brandschutztechnik Gmbh Versus Nirmal Page 7 of 22 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 23 22:48:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/20614/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined Kishore Bhartiya , (2024) 2 SCC 86 the Hon'ble Apex Court while examining the question whether exception to section 499 could be considered at the stage of issue of process under section 204 of the IPC and equally for the High Court examining a petition to quash under section 482 of the code made following observations:-
"60. What the law imposes on the Magistrate as a requirement is that he is bound to consider only such of the materials that are brought before him in terms of Sections 200 and 202 as well as any applicable provision of a statute, and what is imposed as a restriction by law on him is that he is precluded from considering any material not brought on the record in a manner permitted by the legal process. As a logical corollary to the above proposition, what follows is that the Magistrate while deciding whether to issue process is entitled to form a view looking into the materials before him. If, however, such materials themselves disclose a complete defence under any of the Exceptions, nothing prevents the Magistrate upon application of judicial mind to accord the benefit of such Exception to prevent a frivolous complaint from triggering an unnecessary trial.
62. In the context of a complaint of defamation, at the stage the Magistrate proceeds to issue process, he has to form his opinion based on the allegations in the complaint and other material (obtained through the process referred to in Section 200/Section 202) as to whether sufficient ground for proceeding exists as distinguished from sufficient ground for conviction, which has to be left for determination at the trial and not at the stage when process is issued. Although there is nothing in the law which in express terms mandates the Magistrate to consider whether any of the Exceptions to Section 499 IPC is Page 8 of 22 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 23 22:48:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/20614/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined attracted, there is no bar either. After all, what is excepted cannot amount to defamation on the very terms of the provision. We do realise that more often than not, it would be difficult to form an opinion that an Exception is attracted at that juncture because neither a complaint for defamation (which is not a regular phenomenon in the criminal courts) is likely to be drafted with contents, nor are statements likely to be made on oath and evidence adduced, giving an escape route to the accused at the threshold. However, we hasten to reiterate that it is not the law that the Magistrate is in any manner precluded from considering if at all any of the Exceptions is attracted in a given case; the Magistrate is under no fetter from so considering, more so because being someone who is legally trained, it is expected that while issuing process he would have a clear idea of what constitutes defamation. If, in the unlikely event, the contents of the complaint and the supporting statements on oath as well as reports of investigation/inquiry reveal a complete defence under any of the Exceptions to Section 499 IPC, the Magistrate, upon due application of judicial mind, would be justified to dismiss the complaint on such ground and it would not amount to an act in excess of jurisdiction if such dismissal has the support of reasons.
63. Adverting to the aspect of exercise of jurisdiction by the High Courts under Section 482 CrPC, in a case where the offence of defamation is claimed by the accused to have not been committed based on any of the Exceptions and a prayer for quashing is made, law seems to be well settled that the High Courts can go no further and enlarge the scope of inquiry if the accused seeks to rely on materials which were not there before the Magistrate. This is based on the simple proposition that what the Magistrate could not do, the High Courts may not do. We may not be understood to undermine the High Courts' powers saved by Page 9 of 22 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 23 22:48:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/20614/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined Section 482 CrPC; such powers are always available to be exercised ex debito justitiae i.e. to do real and substantial justice for administration of which alone the High Courts exist. However, the tests laid down for quashing an FIR or criminal proceedings arising from a police report by the High Courts in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC not being substantially different from the tests laid down for quashing of a process issued under Section 204 read with Section 200, the High Courts on recording due satisfaction are empowered to interfere if on a reading of the complaint, the substance of statements on oath of the complainant and the witness, if any, and documentary evidence as produced, no offence is made out and that proceedings, if allowed to continue, would amount to an abuse of the legal process. This too, would be impermissible, if the justice of a given case does not overwhelmingly so demand."
8. The position of law has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in another recent judgment in case of Shahed Kamal Versus A.Surti Developers Pvt.Ltd, AIR 2025 SC 2166. The relevant findings are as under:-
"The High Court has also noticed this judgment which holds that if the materials disclosed in the complaint and the documents annexed disclose a complete defence under any of the Exceptions, nothing prevents the Magistrate upon application of judicial mind to accord the benefit of such Exception to prevent a frivolous complaint from triggering an unnecessary trial. It has been further held that what is excepted cannot amount to defamation on the very terms of the provision and that the Magistrate is not in any manner precluded from considering if at all any of the Exceptions is attracted in a given case. It has been further held that if the Magistrate on examination notices that there is a complete defence Page 10 of 22 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 23 22:48:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/20614/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined made out under any one of the Exceptions, the Magistrate would be justified in dismissing the complaint. Equally, the High Court examining the case under Section 482, if it finds on a reading of the complaint, the substance of the statements on oath of the complainant and the witness and the documents produced by the complainant that no offence is made out and if the High Court is of the opinion that proceedings if allowed to continue would be an abuse of legal process, the High Court is empowered to interfere."
9. Ergo, it is clear as crystal that the learned trial Court at the time of issuance of process and this Court examine the issue and inherent jurisdiction of section 482 of the Code, can exercise the application of exception carved out in section 499 of the IPC and its application.
10. It is in this background, let set out to examine the case on hand keeping in mind the important part of definition and exceptions to section 499 of the IPC. However, before this court took a close look at the conduct of the alleged defamatory statement, wherein pecuniary facts needed to be noticed, in the present case, the dispute between the parties has its own genesis. Firstly, the wife of the complainant intended to serve in the school, but the management of the school declined to take the her in service. Subsequently, under the Right to Education Act, the ward of the complainant got admission in the school. However, his conduct was found unworthy of the discipline and therefore, more than one teachers complained it to the management of the school and also tendered their resignation to the effect that if they are forced to teach the ward of the complainant, they will leave Page 11 of 22 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 23 22:48:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/20614/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined from the job and as such they have tendered their resignation. According to the petitioners, due to unworthy and indiscipline approach of the wife of the complainant, the ward of the complainant was expelled from the school by issuing leaving certificate. Then the issue went to the DEO, which ultimately resulted in favour of the complainant by the DEO by directing the school and its management to take back the ward of the complainant and to restore his admission. This order of the DEO was circulated in various newspapers as news items. It is alleged by the petitioners that the complainant and his ally have circulated these news items. Ultimately, the petitioners filed a criminal complaint against the complainant and his ally before the police commissioner, Rajkot. The proceedings under section 151 and 107 of the IPC was taken against the complainant and his ally. This has been published as news item in daily newspaper.
11. Apt to note that the complainant filed SCA No.9001 of 2017 before the coordinate bench of this court with a prayer to implement the communication of the DEO and direct the respondent authority to act as per the communication, the coordinate bench of this court found the petition unworthy of credence and also nonexistence of the cause of action and therefore, dismissed the petition with cost of Rs.2500/-.
12. The public notices claimed to be a defamatory statement are at page 121, 122 and 123. They are similarly worded. In order to understand the same, It is reproduced hereunder Page 12 of 22 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 23 22:48:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/20614/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined (translated into English from vernacular language):-
TO THE PARENTS OF RAJKOT PUBLIC SCHOOL Over the complaint filed by the Principal against Jiten Kansagra and his accomplices for instilling panic by lodging false complaints against the school and threatening the Principal-teachers in-person and over the phone....
Kadva Patel, Original village: Moti Vavdi, JITEN VAJUBHAI KANSAGRA Current Residence:
Aranya Apartment, Mota Mava, Rajkot Kadva Patel, Original village: Adityana, DARSHIT RAJUBHAI Current Residence:
KANTARIYA Jafrabad, R/o Govani Hostel were detained by the police under sections 151, 107, 16(3) and confined in the lock-up from 5:00 pm until 11:45 am the following day, after which they were released on bail. The third accused, whose mobile no. is 97244 49437, is currently absconding. Investigation of all the accused who assisted Jiten is underway...........The school has filed a defamation case against the guardian, Jiten. Rajkot Public School, Ambika Township, Jivrajpark, Rajkot From, The Principal TO THE PARENTS OF RAJKOT PUBLIC SCHOOL Over the complaint filed by the Principal against Jiten Kansagra and his accomplices for instilling panic by lodging false complaints against the school and threatening the Principal-teachers in-person and over the phone....
JITEN VAJUBHAI KANSAGRA Page 13 of 22 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 23 22:48:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/20614/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined Current Residence: Aranya Kadva Patel, Original Village:
Apartment, Mota Mava, Moti Vavdi Rajkot DARSHIT RAJUBHAI KANTARIYA Kadva Patel, Original Village: Current Residence: Jafrabad, Adityana Govani Hostel, Rajkot were detained by the police under sections 151, 107, 16(3) and confined in the lock-up from 5:00 pm until 11:45 am the following day, after which they were released on bail. The third accused, whose mobile no. is 97244 49437, is currently absconding. Investigation of all the accused who assisted Jiten is underway.
The school has filed a defamation case against the guardian, Jiten.
TO THE PARENTS OF RAJKOT PUBLIC SCHOOL Over the complaint filed by the Principal against Jiten Kansagra and his accomplices for instilling panic by lodging false complaints against the school and threatening the Principal-teachers in-person and over the phone....
Kadva Patel, Original village: Moti Vavdi, Current JITEN VAJUBHAI Residence: Aranya KANSAGRA Apartment, Mota Mava, Rajkot Kadva Patel, Original village:
DARSHIT RAJUBHAI Adityana,
KANTARIYA Current Residence: Jafrabad,
R/o Govani Hostel
were detained by the police under sections 151, 107, 16(3) and confined in the lock-up from 5:00 pm until 11:45 am the following day, after which they were released on bail. The third accused, whose mobile no. is 97244 49437, is currently absconding. Investigation of all the accused who assisted Jiten is underway...........The school has filed a defamation case against the guardian, Jiten.Page 14 of 22 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 23 22:48:00 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/20614/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined Rajkot Public School, Ambika Township, Jivrajpark, Rajkot From, Kelkar, The Principal
13. Whether the aforesaid public notice attracts offence under section 499 of the IPC or fall within the exception 1,4 and 9, let refer section 499 of the IPC along with exceptions 1,4 and 9 as under:-
"SECTION 499 : Defamation Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person. First Exception.-Imputation of truth which public good requires to be made or published.-It is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person, if it be for the public good that the imputation should be made or published. Whether or not it is for the public good is a question of fact.
Fourth Exception.-Publication of reports of proceedings of Courts.-It is not defamation to publish substantially true report of the proceedings of a Court of Justice, or of the result of any such proceedings.
Ninth Exception.-Imputation made in good faith by person for protection of his or other's interests.-It is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another provided that the imputation be made in good faith for the protection of the interests of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good."Page 15 of 22 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 23 22:48:00 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/20614/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined
14. To constitute "defamation" under section 499 there must be an imputation and such imputation must have been made with the intention of harming or knowing or having reason to believe that it will harm the reputation the person about whom it is made. In essence, the offence of defamation is the harm caused to the reputation of a person. It would be sufficient to show that the accused intended or knew or had reason to believe that the imputation made by him would harm the reputation of the complainant, irrespective of whether the complainant actually suffered directly or indirectly from the imputation alleged [See- Jeffrey J. Diermeier v State of West Bengal (2010)3 SCC (Cri) 138:
(2010)6 SCC 243]
15. Apposite that first exception says that imputation would not be defamatory if it is true concerning any person, if it be for the public good. Fourth exception says that it is not defamation to publish substantially true report of the proceedings of a Court of Justice, or of the result of any such proceedings. Ninth exception says that if imputation is made in good faith for protection of interest of a person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good, it is not defamation.
16. In Valmiki Faleiro v. Mrs. Lauriana Fernandes and Others, etc. 2005 SCC OnLine Bom 1584 , the accused published a notice in a newspaper informing the public that the complainant is not the owner of a certain property and the real owners are the accused. The notice also warned the public to refrain them from purchasing plots from the Page 16 of 22 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 23 22:48:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/20614/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined complainant. While quashing the complaint, the High Court found the following:-
"23. The essence of offence of defamation is the harm caused to the reputation of a person. Character is what a person actually is and reputation, is what neighbours, and others say he is. In other words, reputation is a composite hearsay and which is the opinion of the community against a person. Everyone is entitled to have a very high estimate of himself but reputation is the estimation in which a person is held by others. The commission of offence of defamation or publishing any imputations concerning any person must be intending to harm or knowing or having reason to believe that, such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, (emphasis supplied.). The notice, in question on the face of it does not contain any such imputation which could be said to harm the reputation of the complainant. On the other hand, a bare reading of the said notice shows that it has been published by accused Nos. 1 and 2 with a view to protect the right to the property which they believe they have a right. A person reading the said notice may at first flush be a little amused that the said accused are claiming a set of villages rather than think that it is published with a view to defame the complainant. All that the said accused have conveyed by the said notice is that the property/properties do not belong to the complainant but belong to them and that anyone dealing with the complainant will be doing so at their own risk. The contention that the said notice is per se defamatory and that it attributes dishonest intention that the complainant lacks business character and propriety appears to be a figment of the complainant's imagination. Such a conclusion cannot be culled out by a normal prudent person from a reading of the said notice which apparently was published by the said accused Nos. 1 and 2 to protect a right which they believe they have to the property and with a view to warn others that in case they enter into any transaction of sale with the complainant they would be doing so at their own risk Page 17 of 22 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 23 22:48:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/20614/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined and consequences. A reading of the notice, on the face of it, does not show that it was published with intention or knowledge to harm the reputation of the complainant. In my view, the learned Sessions Judge was right in exercising his discretion to quash and set aside the Order issuing process against the aforesaid accused."
17. Language is the vehicle through which thoughts are conveyed. By publishing public notice reproduced herein above, question arise that could it be establish that the petitioners have exceeded its privilege to get out from the exceptions.
18. In Municipal Board Konch vs. Ganesh Prasad Chaturvedi, 1951 SCC OnLine All 117, whereby some leaflates were issued claiming to defame the Board. The Hon'ble Apex Court while upholding dismissal of the complaint, observed as under:-
"6. Having regard to the provisions of Section 499 read with Explanation 2 and the definition of the word person in Section 11 of the Penal Code, 1860 it cannot (... sic) said that a complaint for defamation is not maintainable at all by a corporation. But certainly the scope of such a complaint by a corporation is not the same as that by individuals. The municipal board per se has hardly a reputation. If the management is good it will be said that the Board is being run efficiently. But if the management is bad there is bound to be accusation of inefficiency and nepotism etc. If a person makes any imputation so as to cause any special injury to the property of the board then the board can maintain a complaint under Section
500. But where the minority party in the board attacks the majority party for inefficiency then such an attack does not amount to defamation.Page 18 of 22 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 23 22:48:00 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/20614/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined
7. Now Section 499 requires inter alia an intention on the part of the accused to harm the reputation of the complainant or the knowledge that the imputation made by him will harm such reputation. Learned Sessions Judge has arrived at the finding that there was no such intention because the holds that the criticisms by Ganesh Prasad were not wrong. Impliedly the learned Sessions Judge means that these criticisms were intended to tune up the administration. In the absence of such intention the complaint is not maintainable.
8. For the sound working of democracy it is necessary that criticisms of the administration of the municipal boards, within reasonable limits should (sic) allowed.
Though the case considered exception 1 to Section 499, the observations do have a bearing as far as the present case is concerned."
19. Another judgment, which could be noticed in this regard is in case of Ramachandra Venkataramanan vs. Shapoorji Pallonji & Company Ltd. and Another, (2019) SCC OnLine Bom 524. The Hon'ble Apex Court while quashing the proceedings for criminal defamation, observed as under:-
"48. Coming to the press note, the allegedly offending words stated in it are motivated, baseless and smear campaign. Smear means damaging the reputation by false accusation. These words are required to be read in the entire context. The petitioner has made this statement with the reference to earlier disputes. As mentioned in the beginning, the matter carries a baggage of accusations, denials, claims and disclaimer. Both the parties are from the business world. Though they initially worked together, today, they are at loggerheads. Their disputes are discussed publicly by the media and the people. When two persons are fighting, they are bound to make some allegations against each other. If Page 19 of 22 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 23 22:48:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/20614/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined these allegations are abusive, they create an impression of hatred, contempt and ridicule against the person who is attacked. I am of the view that these words do not constitute defamation. One has to be careful in choosing the words while expressing his feelings. To express and speak is an invaluable fundamental right of an individual guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India to all the citizens which is the soul of democracy. The law of defamation is one of legally acceptable reasonable restrictions in the Indian legal system. To oppose, deny, reject, defend, etc. are the ways of expression. It manifests emotional status and thinking process. However, it should not lead to harm, damage, which is a rider to the freedom of expression. Thus, one can disclaim, refuse, deny, reject certain charges or allegations made against him or her publicly with restrained words. Ultimately, it is a choice of words which may constitute the offence of defamation."
20. In the context of the aforesaid provisions of law, if we examine the statements made in public notice claiming to be defamatory, they found not to be intentional or public to defame the complainant. By this public notice, the petitioner school published that the complainant and his ally have been arrested pursuant to the proceedings u/s 151 and 107 and taken into custody for overnight and released on bail on next day, per se not defamatory statement. Moreover, stating the caste of the complainant and his ally being "Kadva Patel" is not a defamatory statement. Exception 1,4 and 9 of section 499 of the IPC clearly applies.
21. Apt to note that the complainant and his ally have taken the school in ransom and were spreading fright and misgiving Page 20 of 22 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 23 22:48:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/20614/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined pursuant to earlier news items published in the daily newspaper as well as social media. Thus, these statements fall within exception 1 and 4 and therefore, the public notice is not considered to be defamatory statement. Thus, the order of the learned trial Court issuing process u/s 204 of the Code suffers from non-application of mind. The applicability of exception has not been discussed by the learned trial Court at all. Therefore, the order is found to be cryptic and unreasoned. The learned trial Court when decided to issue process for the offence of defamation being a serious act, was also required to filter the complaint by addressing exceptions stated in section 499 of the IPC. Absence to address such exceptions by the learned trial Court rendered the order nugatory and worthless.
22. In the case of State of Haryana Vs. B.Bhajanlal & ors., AIR 1992 SC 604, the Hon'ble Apex Court summed up the proposition of law, which reads as under:-
"(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations ins the F.I.R. and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under S.156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of S.155(2) of the code.
(3) Where, the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same donot disclose the commission of any offence Page 21 of 22 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 23 22:48:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/20614/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined and make out the case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under S.155(2) of the Code.
(5) Whether, the allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint are sO absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where, there is an express legal bare engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) toi the institution and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
22.1 The findings of the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 1,5 and 7 are attracted in the present case. In view of above, present petition deserves consideration.
23. In the result, present petition is allowed. Proceedings of Criminal Case No.152 of 2017 pending before the learned CJM, Rajkot and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioners herein are hereby quashed and set aside. Direct service is permitted.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) SHEKHAR P. BARVE Page 22 of 22 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 23 22:48:00 IST 2025