Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Chapparapu Masthanaiah, E.G. Dist. vs State Of A.P., Rep. By P.P., Hyd 2 Others on 15 July, 2019
Author: M. Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M. Satyanarayana Murthy
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1232 of 2015
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings against the petitioner, in C.C.No.358 of 2014, on the file of the III Additional First Class Magistrate, Rajahmudnry, East Godavari District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 499, 500 and 509 of Indian Penal Code.
Heard Sri T.V. Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent- State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a Writ Petition No.27465 of 2012 was filed before this Court by K. Srinivasa Narayana and 3 others for various reliefs more particularly, to declare the action of action of respondents therein withholding the payment of salaries of the petitioners therein, as illegal and arbitrary and in the writ petition, the petitioner herein filed counter-affidavit making certain defamatory allegations and thereby this Court by its order, set aside the notice impugned, leaving it open to the 1st respondent to take necessary action in accordance with law. On the strength of the observations made by this Court, in the order passed in writ petition, a complaint is lodged before the III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajahmundry for the offences punishable under Sections 500 and 509 R/w 120 of IPC.
The petitioner is the Principal, on the basis of Counter-affidavit he filed in the Writ Petition No.27465 of 2012 the complaint is filed. No doubt there are allegations made in the counter-affidavit may 2 amounts to defamation but such defamatory statement made during judicial proceedings though fall within the definition of defamation, there are exceptions for construing a particular statement is defamatory. It is always subject to privileges laid down under common law. 'Privilege' means that a person stands in such relation to the facts of the case that he is justified in saying or writing what would be slanderous or libelous in any one else. The general principle underlying the defence of privilege is the common convenience and welfare of society or the general interest of society. Privilege is of two kinds: the first is absolute and the second is qualified.
When a statement is absolutely privileged, no action lies for it even though it is false and defamatory and made with express malice. On certain occasions the interest of society require that a man should speak out his mind fully and frankly, without thought of fear of consequences, e.g., in Parliamentary proceedings or in the course of judicial, military, naval proceedings. To such occasions, when a statement is given, such statement is absolutely privileged, a statement is said to have a qualified privilege when no action lies for it even though it is false and defamatory, unless the plaintiff proves express malice. They are 1) communications made (a) in the course of legal, social or moral duty, (b) for self-protection, (c) for protection of common interest, (d) for public good; and 2) reports of Parliamentary and judicial proceedings, and proceedings at public meetings. Here, statement made in the judicial proceedings, the action for libel or slander is not maintainable. According to settled law laid down by various High Courts in India following the common law principles, when a statement is made in judicial proceedings like affidavits and 3 pleadings, no action lies for a statement made by him in the affidavit in the course of judicial proceedings, even though it be alleged to have been made falsely and maliciously, and without any reasonable or probable cause.
In a decision reported in "Govind Ramachandra Vs. Gangadhar Mahadeveo1", Bombay High Court held in para 3 that it is quite clear, and it is also conceded, that by virtue of these provisions all proceedings before the Tribunal or the Bar Council are judicial proceedings. It is, however, urged that in the present case the High Court did not forward the complaint to the Bar Council on the ground that suitable action had been taken by itself, and as no judicial proceedings had been started against the plaintiff, the petition cannot be deemed to be absolutely privileged under the law. We are unable to accept this argument. It is no doubt true that if the High Court so chose it may not forward the complaint to the Bar Council. But if the High Court is satisfied that there are prima facie grounds for proceeding against an advocate, it sends the same complaint to the Bar Council on which the proceedings start. The complaint or the application to the High Court must, therefore, in our opinion, be regarded as an essential step for taking judicial proceedings. The law is summarized in Halsbury's Laws of England, Hailsham Edition, Vol. XX, p. 465', para. 564; that the privilege attaches not merely to proceedings at the trial, but to proceedings which are essential steps in judicial proceedings, including statements in pleadings and communications passing between a solicitor and his client on the subject on which the client has retained the solicitor and which are relevant to the matter. 1 1944 (46) BOMLR, page 417 4 Therefore, the steps in a judicial proceedings making complaint to police and all other proceedings in calendar case attaches the absolute privilege and thereby the action for libelous statement not maintainable.
In another Judgment reported in "Adivaramma Vs. Ramachandra Reddy2", wherein his Lordship Justice 'Wallis" held that "When the statement made in the counter affidavit which is defamatory in appeal filed against the order passed by the Court, no civil action will lie, basing on the judgment of Privy Council in "Ganesh Dutt Singh v. Mugneeram Chowdary [(1872) 11, B.L.R page 321, 328]", and finally concluded that the suit is not maintainable and dismissed the suit.
Similarly in another judgment reported in "Rao Saheb Sedimbi Hanumantha Raw Vs. Nidumolu Seetaramayya3" His Lordship Justice 'Burn' of High Court of Madras held in para No.5 as follows:-
"The authorities establish beyond all. question this: that neither party,, witness, counsel, jury, nor judge, can be put to answer civilly or criminally for words spoken in office; that no action of libel or slander lies, whether against judges, counsel, witnesses, or parties, for words written or spoken in the course of any proceeding before any Court recognised by law, and this though the words written or spoken were written or spoken maliciously without any justification or excuse, and from personal ill will and anger; against the person defamed."
As it is an absolute privilege and therefore lodging report based on the observations made in the order in writ petition on the allegation that this petitioner made defamatory statement in the counter-affidavit does not permit the respondents to proceed against the petitioner. Even in facts, no allegation is made in the counter- 2 1910 (21) MLJ, page 85 3 1942 (1) MLJ page 247 5 affidavit which lowered the prestige of the respondent except filing affidavit with false allegations. Such statement do not constitute an offence punishable under Section 500 and 509 of I.P.C. In view of the law declared by various Courts, I find that it is a fit case to quash the proceedings since such a statement made in the judicial statement would not constitute an offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC as there is an absolute privilege and the petitioner is not required to prove truth or otherwise in the allegation.
In the result, the criminal petition is allowed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal petition shall stand closed.
__________________________________ M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J Date: 24.06.2019 PGR