Allahabad High Court
Sri Krishna Kumar Bisnoi And Another vs State Of U.P. And Others on 6 March, 2020
Author: Sudhir Agarwal
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 34 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14927 of 2006 Applicant :- Sri Krishna Kumar Bisnoi And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Applicant :- C.B. Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate, D.D.Kushwaha, Raja Ram Kushwaha Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri C.B. Gupta, Advocate for applicants and learned A.G.A. for State. None appeared on behalf of Respondent-2 though the case is called in revise. Hence, I proceed to decide the matter after hearing learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A.
2. Applicants have invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") with a prayer to quash the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 2214 of 2004 (Abdul Hafiz vs. Om Tiwari), under Sections 500, 502 IPC, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahoba.
3. Applicant-1, Krishna Kumar Bisnoi is the proprietor of daily news paper "Dainik Jagran" and Applicant-2, Sanjay Gupta, is an Editor. Complaint dated 23.09.2004 was filed by Respondent-2 against applicants regarding news item published in daily newspaper "Dainik Jagran" dated 27.06.2004. Contents of news item as well as complaint reads as under:
News Item ^^iksrksa us nknh dks dejs esa pquok;k fut izfrfuf/k] egksck dgrs gS fd lEifRr ds vkxs lkjs fj'rs ukrs csekuh gks tkrs gSaA dqN ,slk gh lp ml le; lkeus vk;k tc ,d 80 o"khZ; o`) us dkrsokyh esa izkFkZuk i= nsdj vius gh iq= o iksrksa ij ekjihV djus o iRuh dks dejs esa can dj njoktk pquokus dh f'kdk;r dhA tkudkjh ds eqrkfcd 'kgj ds ca/kkuiqjk fuoklh xqykc [kka us dksrokyh iqfyl dks fn;s x;s f'kdk;rh i= esa crk;k fd esjs ikap yM+ds o pkj yM+fd;ka gSA ftuesa ls NksVh yM+dh dks NksM+dj lHkh 'kknh'kqnk gSaA mlus crk;k fd og viuh iRuh vkSj NksVh yM+dh ds lkFk ftl edku esa jg jgs gSa mlh edku esa mldk e>yk yM+dk gkfen o mldk ifjokj Hkh jgrk gSA crk;k fd edku esa ,sd gh fudkl gksus ds pyrs ;g yksx vk;s fnu fookn djrs gSaA f'kdk;rh i= esa o`) us myys[k fd;k fd esjs iq= gkfen o mlds yM+ds gQht] vkye] xkfyc] ekftn o okftc }kjk fudkl dks vo:) djus dh fu;r ls ukS ekpZ dks nhokj mBk;s tkus dk fojks/k djus ij mDr yksxksa us esjh iRuh cQkru dsk dejs esa can dj njoktk pquok fn;k FkkA fdlh rjg lqHkk"k pksdh iqfyl ds gLr{ksi ds ckn mls ckgj fudkyk x;k FkkA crk;k fd bl ekeys dks ysdj esjs }kjk flfoy tt twfu;j fMohtu ds ;gka ;kfpdk nk;j dh x;h Fkh ftl ij U;k;ky; us fuekZ.k ds fo:) Lvs vkMZj fn;k FkkA ysfdu bl lc ds ckotwn og yksx nhokj cukus ij vkeknk gS vkSj lkFk gh ge lc dks tku ls ekjus dh /kedh Hkh ns jgs gSaA mlus dksrokyh iqfyl ls dk;Zokgh dh ekax dh gSA** Complaint ^^lknj fuosnu gS fd izkFkhZ ifjoknh o mlds HkkbZ vCnqy vkfye [kka vCnqy xkfyc [kka] vCnqy ekftn [kka iq=x.k Jh vCnqy gkfen [kka 'kgj egksck ftyk egksck esa fuokl djrs gSa ifjoknh ds firk vCnqy gken [kka iq= xqykc [kka orZeku esa e/; izns'k esa {ks= lgk;d vf/kdkjh i'kq ikyu foHkkx rglhy jgrh ftyk lkxj e0iz0 ds in ij lsokjr gS rFkk lekt esa vPNs Hkys le; yksxksa esa lqekj fd;s tkrs gSaA vfHk;qDr la[;k 1 vkse frokjh tks vius vkidks nSfud tkxj.k lekpkj i= ftldk izdk'ku dkuiqj ls gksrk gS dk vius vkidks LFkkuh; i=dkj crkrk gS rFkk vkYgk pkSd 'kgj egksck esa nSfud tkxj.k ds uke ftyk dk;kZy; nSfud tkxj.k dk [kksys gSaA vkse frokjh dks O;fDrxr yxko gekjh foi{kh ikVhZ ls yksdu dk gksus ds dkj.k cgqr ?kfu"B gS rFkk fe=rk ekurs gSaA vfHk;qDr la[;k 1 us ;g tkurs gq;s fd tks lekpkj cukdj og nSfud tkxj.k lekpkj i= esa izdkf'kr djkus tk jgk gS og feF;k gS rFkk dfFkr ,slh dksbZ ?kVuk ?kfVr ugha gqbZ gSA izfrf"Br nSfud lekpkj i= nSfud tkxj.k ftldk izdk'ku dkuiqj 'kgj ds loksZn; uxj eqgYyk ls gksrk gS esa vfHk;qDr la[;k 2 vfHk0 la[;k 3 dh enn ls izdkf'kr fd;k o djk;k rFkk vfHk;qDr la0 3 us tkucw>dj vius izsl esa fnukad 27-6-2004 bZ0 dks izknsf'kd lekpkj ds i`"B la[;k 9 ij iksrksa us nknh dks dejs esa pquok;k uked 'kh"kZd ls Nk;k rFkk izpkfjr ,oa izlkfjr fd;kA mDr nSfud tkxj.k lekpkj i= esa mDr feF;k lekpkj ds izdkf'kr gksus ls eqdkeh Fkkuk iqfyl egksck us rRdky fnukad 27-6-2004 bZ0 dks gh gekjs ?kj ij izkr% 9-00 cts Nkik ekjk rFkk ifjoknh o ifjoknh ds lHkh HkkbZ eka dks viekfur fd;k vkSj dgh iwNrkaN dh fd dkSu lk dejk gS pydj crkvks tgka ij vki yksxks }kjk viuh nknh dks dejs esa ftUnk pquok;k gSA ifjoknh o ifjokj ds lHkh lnL; iqfyl dh vpkud bl vizR;kflr gekjs ?kj nfcl nsdj dk;Zokgh ls eSA rFkk esjk iwjk ifjokj lnek ,oe Mj ls cqjh rjg Hk;Hkhr gks x;sA iqfyl dh dk;Zokgh dks ns[kdj eqgky o jkg pyrs reke HkhM ,d= gks x;hA tc iqfyl us gekjk iwjk ?kj Nku fy;k rFkk gekjh o`) nknh dks mUgha ds ?kj esa LoLFk vkSj Bhd ik;k rc tkdj gekjh tku cp ldhA iqfyl dh bl dk;Zokgh ls lekt esa gekjh Nfo ,dne ls /kwfey gks x;h vkSj pkjks vksj cgqr cnukeh gqbZA tc rd iqfyl ds dk;Zokgh ?kj esa ryk'kh dh pyrh jgh rc rd eSa o esjk iwjk ifjokj cgqr ;krukvksa ds nkSj ls xqtjkA lekt ds cgqr yksxksa us mDr lekpkj dks tc i<+k rks esjs cgqr ls fe=ksa o 'kqHkfpUrdksa us fj'rsnkjksa us ,oa feyus tqyus okyksa us bl lekpkj dks xEHkhjrk ij ppkZ eq>ls dh rFkk dgk fd vki yksxksa dks cgqr bTtr ds lkFk ns[kk tkrk Fkk ysfdu vki yksxksa us viuh nknh ds lkFk ;s D;k fd;k bldk dbZ txg Li"Vhdj.k Hkh nsuk iM+k vkSj tks bTtr lekt esa feyrh Fkh og feyuh cUn gks x;hA mDr lekpkj ds izdk'ku ls o izlkfjr izpkfjr gksus ls gekjh Nfo lekt esa fcYdqy u"V gks x;hA vc ge dks cM+k viekfur] thou thuk iM+ jgk gsA ;g tkurs gq;s fd tks lekpkj izdkf'kr fd;k x;k gS og iwjh rjg feF;k izdkf'kr fd;k x;k gS dk vki yksxksa us drbZ [k.Mu ugha fd;k vkSj u gh vius lekpkj ds ek/;e ls bl fef;k lekpkj ds izdk'ku ij [ksn gh O;Dr fd;kA bl ij ifjoknh us iathd`r Mkd }kjk uksfVl }kjk lwpuk nh fd vki vius lEekfur nSfud lekpkj i= nSfud tkxj.k esa bl fef;k lekpkj dk tks nqHkkZouk o ns"kiw.kZ dkj.kksa ls >wBk izdkf'kr djk;k x;k gS dk [k.Mu dj lekpkj izdkf'kr dj [ksn O;Dr djus dk d"v djsa rkfd gekjh bTtr izfr"Bk o lEeku tks lekt esa u"V gks x;k gS dks iqu% izkIr dj lds ysfdu uksfVl dh vof/k Hkh O;rhr gksus ij vki dh rjQ ls dksbZ ifjoknh o ifjoknh ds ifjokn tuksa lEeku tufgr esa dk;Z fd;k x;kA vfHk;qDrx.kksa dk ;g QSy rk0 g0 dh /kkjk 500 o 502 ds vUrxZr n.Muh; vijk/k gSA vr% Jheku th ls izkFkZuk gS fd vfHk;qDrx.kksa dks gLo /kkjk 500 o 502 rk0 fg0 ds vUrxZr U;k;ky; ryc djkdj nf.Mr djus dh d`ik dh tk;s rFkk ifjoknh dks tks {kfr gqbZ mldh iwfrZ djkbZ tk;s vfr d`ik gksxhA**
4. Section 499 IPC provides as to what is "defamation" and reads as under:-
"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."
5. There are four Explanations and ten Exceptions in Section 499 IPC which I had not quoted.
6. Explanations covers some shades of the words, spoken or intended to be read etc., which may amount to "defamation" while exceptions give the illustrations of what will not constitute "defamation". To be more particular, Explanations-1, 2 and 3 provide certain aspects which would amount to defamation and Explanation-4 explains the words "will harm the reputation of such person" which is a necessary and integral part of Section 499 IPC so as to constitute defamation. Offence of defamation, therefore, consists of three essential ingredients. (i) making or publishing an imputation concerning a person; (ii) such imputation must have been made by words either spoken or intended to be read or by signs or by visible representations; and, (iii) the said imputation must have been made with the intention of harming or with the knowledge or having reason to believe that it will harm the reputation of the person concerned.
7. Thus, to bring an offence under Section 500 IPC, prosecution has to show, (a) that an imputation was made consisting of words spoken or written or intended to be read or made by signs or by visible representations; (b) that the imputation concerned the complainant, i.e., the person defamed and the person who has come forward qua complainant alleging that defamation concerned him, are identical persons; (c) that the accused made or published the incriminating imputation; and, (d) that the intention behind making and publishing words causing harm to the reputation of such person.
8. Offence punishable under Section 500 IPC, therefore, is to protect a fundamental right of a person i.e. 'reputation' which is part of right to enjoyment of life and liberty and property having an ancient origin as explained by Supreme Court in Smt. Kiran Bedi v. Committee of Inquiry and another 1989 (1) SCC 494 wherein Court reproduced the observations from D.F. Marion v. Davis 10 55 ALR 171 as under:-
"The right to enjoyment of a private reputation, unassailed by malicious slander is of ancient origin, and is necessary to human society. A good reputation is an element of personal security, and is protected by the Constitution equally with the right to the enjoyment of life, liberty and property. " (emphasis added)
9. In Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay vs. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni and Others (1983) 1 SCC 124, Court said that "right to reputation" is a facet of right to life of a citizen under Article 21 of Constitution.
10. In Vishwanath S/o Sitaram Agrawal v. Sau. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal 2012 (6) SCALE 190, Court dealt with the aspect of "reputation" though in a different context, and said:-
"........reputation which is not only the salt of life, but also the purest treasure and the most precious perfume of life. It is extremely delicate and a cherished value this side of the grave. It is a revenue generator for the present as well as for the posterity. "
(emphasis added)
11. In Kishore Samrite Vs. State of U.P. and Others 2013 (2) SCC 398, Court said:-
"The term 'person' includes not only the physical body and members but also every bodily sense and personal attribute among which is the reputation a man has acquired. Reputation can also be defined to be good name, the credit, honour or character which is derived from a favourable public opinion or esteem, and character by report. The right to enjoyment of a good reputation is a valuable privilege of ancient origin and necessary to human society. 'Reputation' is an element of personal security and is protected by Constitution equally with the right to enjoyment of life, liberty and property. Although 'character' and 'reputation' are often used synonymously, but these terms are distinguishable. 'Character' is what a man is and 'reputation' is what he is supposed to be in what people say he is. 'Character' depends on attributes possessed and 'reputation' on attributes which others believe one to possess. The former signifies reality and the latter merely what is accepted to be reality at present. "
(emphasis added)
12. Offence under Section 500 IPC, therefore, covers a very important aspect involving a person's right to life and liberty, hence when a complaint is made that a person's reputation has been jeopardized, any Magistrate if has taken cognizance in the matter by initiating proceedings, Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution should not interfere lightly unless a clear case of abuse of process of law is made out.
13. Ex-facie an offence of defamation required firstly, a false statement and if a statement itself is not false, one need not go further as to whether such statement has the effect of damaging one's goodwill or reputation or image, inasmuch as, if a statement of fact which is not false is uttered then Section 499 IPC is not attracted at all.
14. In a matter, complaining of offence of defamation, the alleged statement has to be appreciated in a manner which will be read, understood and viewed by right thinking and reasonable minded person of ordinary prudence. The statement has to be read and understood in its entirety and not selectively, in piecemeal, or by adding something which is not there. Natural and ordinary meaning of words would be supplied and what meaning and message it would convey to a man of ordinary prudence is a crucial aspect. Imputation of fraud, dishonesty and corruption in any manner directly attributing to complainant, no doubt, would amount to defamation but every statement which is not liked by complainant himself cannot be said to be a defamatory statement.
15. I have no manner of doubt that while considering the questions, whether an offence under Section 499 IPC punishable under Section 500 IPC has been committed, and whether Magistrate is justified in issuing process, the exceptions laid down in Section 499 IPC would not be considered since the same are defence available to accused and not to be looked into at the stage of issue of process by Magistrate but he (Magistrate) yet has to examine whether alleged statement, if read, as it is, do satisfy the requirement of "defamation" as defined in Section 499 IPC. It cannot be ignored that different persons react to the same situation differently, had different assessments and judgment of a situation and facts are based on human nature, mindset, approach, intelligentsia and ability of appreciation. Reaction of a reasonable person or right thinking member of society to the words spoken is a relevant consideration to find, whether statement in question amounts to defamation. Section 499 IPC clearly provides that statement of imputation must be with the intent of causing harm or having reason to belief that such imputation will harm reputation of the person about whom it is made. Meaning thereby, the identity of person in respect of whom the statement is made must be clear from the statement itself and not from the inference drawn by the person who claims that in his presence or before him an statement was made.
16. Further, if an inference is drawn by the person claiming that before him the statement was made then first of all it is the person who has drawn inference has to verify that a statement justifying such inference was made and unless such fact is not brought before Court concerned, any other statement of a person would amount to a hearsay and cannot be said to have proved that an offence under Section 499 IPC punishable under Section 500 and 502 IPC has been committed.
17. In the case in hand, having gone through the entire complaint, I find that ingredients of Section 499 I.P.C. are not made out and, therefore, no proceedings under Section 500 and 502 I.P.C. can be initiated.
18. In view thereof, the application is allowed. proceedings of Complaint Case No. 2214 of 2004 (Abdul Hafiz vs. Om Tiwari), under Sections 500, 502 IPC pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahoba is hereby quashed.
Order Date :- 6.3.2020 AK