Delhi District Court
Vide This Judgment vs State And Ors. The Copy on 8 January, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ABHISHEK KUMAR,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : WEST-05,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CC No. : 9978/2016
PS : Moti Nagar
Ashok Kumar Munna,
S/o Late Sh. Har Sahai,
R/o House No. C-43, Karam Pura, New Delhi.
Vs.
Keshav Kumar,
S/o Sh. Narayan Lal,
R/o House No. C-48, Karam Pura, Delhi.
Date of institution of case : 18.10.2007
Date of reserving the judgment : 21.08.2019
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 08.01.2020
JUDGMENT
1. S. No. of the Case: 9978/2016
2. Date of institution of the case: 18.10.2007
3. Name of the complainant: Ashok Kumar Munna
4. Name of the accused: Keshav Kumar
5. Offence complained or proved: 500 IPC
6. Plea of Accused: "Not Guilty"
7. Final Order: Acquitted
8. Date of Final Order: 08.01.2020
CC No. 9978/16 Ashok Kumar Munna v. Keshav Kumar 1 of 25
PS Moti Nagar
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the complaint filed under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as CrPC) by Complainant Ashok Kumar Munna against Keshav Kumar.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The present complaint was filed by the complainant on 16.10.2007. It is the case of the complainant that in the month of July 2007, he received summons from the Hon' ble High Court of Delhi along with a copy of Writ Petition (Crl.) bearing No. 2448/06 which was filed by the accused against the complainant and certain other respondents. The complainant found certain derogatory remarks against him in the Writ Petition. It is averred by the complainant that the imputations made by the accused in the Writ Petition has lowered his reputation in the estimation of others. He also sent legal notice dated 08.08.2007 to the accused through his counsel so that he can withdraw the allegations and seek apology but the complainant gave a reply to the notice and did not apologize. The alleged defamatory allegations leveled against the complainant in the Writ Petition are as follows:-
" Petitioner made complaints against illegal detention and arrest and imprisonment by local police at the behest of Accused no. 5 who is a known BC of the area and indulge in dirty politics CC No. 9978/16 Ashok Kumar Munna v. Keshav Kumar 2 of 25 PS Moti Nagar and his family members ________ .
" 3. The Respondent No. 5 Sh. Ashok Kumar Munna S/o Sh. Har Sahai is a known bad character (BC) of the area of police station Moti Nagar. He even contested the elections for the area Councilor and MLA. He basically act as the agent of the local leaders and local police in illegally recovering money from the innocent people and traders. Under the patronage of local leaders, this man Ashok Kumar has even indulged in grabbing and encroaching public/Govt. Land."
Proceedings before the Court
3. The present complaint was filed in the court on 18.10.2007. Thereafter, the matter was kept for pre-summoning evidence and the same was concluded on 25.02.2008. Summons were issued against the accused under Section 500 Cr. P. C. as per the order dated 15.04.2008. The accused appeared before the Court on 10.09.2008 and he was admitted to bail. The notice was framed against the accused vide order dated 18.01.2012. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for complainant evidence and the same was concluded on 19.09.2017. Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 16.10.2017. The accused examined himself along with three other witnesses in the defense evidence. The defense evidence was concluded on 05.04.2019.
CC No. 9978/16 Ashok Kumar Munna v. Keshav Kumar 3 of 25 PS Moti Nagar Thereafter, the matter was kept for final arguments.
Complainant's Evidence
4. CW1 Ashok Kumar Munna has deposed that he was the President of RWA, Karam Pura, Delhi and also contested elections for Municipal Corporation, Delhi Legislative Assembly and for Lok Sabha as independent candidate. He is also involved in various social services. Further, the accused is living nearby his house and they had good relations initially but due to his progress, the accused harboured grudge against him with the sole motive of harassing him by making false complaints before various authorities. He also deposed that in the month of July 2007, he received summons from the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition No. 2448/06 which was filed by the accused against him. Further, while going through the copy of the Writ Petition received by him, he found certain derogatory imputations against him in paragraph 3. The witness stated that accused has used the words that he is a bad character of the area and was indulged in dirty politics and has created terror. Also, the accused mentioned in the Writ Petition that he was agent of Local Leader and Police and for illegally recovering money from innocent people and Traders and also indulged in land encroachment/grabbing. He also filed the certified copy of the said Writ Petition. He also sent a legal notice to the accused but he never apologized and replied to the notice. He stated that due to this imputations, his reputation has greatly lowered in the estimation of his CC No. 9978/16 Ashok Kumar Munna v. Keshav Kumar 4 of 25 PS Moti Nagar family, friends, relatives and also, in the eyes of other members of the society.
5. CW2 Vijay Pal Singh, Senior Judicial Assistant from RKD Branch, High Court of Delhi brought the scanned copy of Writ Petition (Crl) No. 2448/2006 titled as Keshav Kumar Vs. State and Ors. The copy of the memo of parties was exhibited as CW2/1, copy of the list of dates and events was exhibited as CW2/2 and the copy of the above stated Writ Petition was exhibited as CW2/3. The complainant did not examine any other witness.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
6. DW1 Sh. Devender Kumar, Judicial Assistant, Record, High Court of Delhi produced the copy of the printed record of the Writ Petition (Crl) No. 2448/2006. The same was exhibited as DW1/1 (colly.).
7. DW2 Ms. Savita, MTS from the Office of the Assistant Housing Commissioner, Labor Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Karampura, Delhi brought the record with regard to the reply which was given to Keshav Kumar under the RTI Act and the same was exhibited as DW2/1 (Colly) (OSR).
8. DW3 HC Pradeep Kumar, RTI Office of DCP, West, Janak Puri, Delhi stated before the Court that the record sought by the accused was CC No. 9978/16 Ashok Kumar Munna v. Keshav Kumar 5 of 25 PS Moti Nagar not available as record from the period 01.01.2005 to 31.12.2009 was destroyed by the order of Addl. Deputy Commissioner of Police and the same was exhibited as Mark DW3/X. He also stated that the record for the period 01.01.2010 to 31.12.2012 was destroyed by the order of Addl. Deputy Commissioner of Police and the same was exhibited as Mark DW3/Y.
9. DW4 Keshav Kumar deposed that the present complaint was false and the petition was rightly filed by him before the High Court of Delhi. He stated that he was put behind the Bars by the complainant in connivance with the police and therefore, he filed the petition before the High Court of Delhi for quashing. Further, the case was decided by the High Court of Delhi and the copy of the order is Ex.PW4/A (OSR). Also, the complainant had grabbed a vacant house and was residing as his neighbour and raised an illegal construction due to which the window of his bathroom got locked. He had requested the complainant to remove the same for proper ventilation but he refused. He also threatened him and he also filed a complaint against the complainant before the Municipal Corporation but no action was taken. He also filed a case before the Court in the name of his mother and during the pendency of the said proceedings, the complainant threatened him and asked him to withdraw the case. When he refused, he was falsely implicated in a case and he had to file the petition before the High Court of Delhi. Also, he got the documents from Delhi Police under RTI which are exhibited as Ex.DW4/B (OSR). Further, he has also come to know that the RWA, CC No. 9978/16 Ashok Kumar Munna v. Keshav Kumar 6 of 25 PS Moti Nagar Karampura filed a complaint against the complainant with regard to the manipulation in the installation of the electricity meters in the area. He received the information through RTI which is Ex.DW4/C (Colly and OSR). The accused did not examine any other witness.
ARGUMENTS
10. It was argued by counsel Sh. Amulya Dhingra for the complainant that they have succeeded in establishing all the ingredients for the offence under section 499 IPC against the accused. The counsel argued that by mentioning the material in the Writ Petition which was derogatory with regard to the complainant amounts to publication under Section 499 IPC. In order to support his contention, he placed reliance on the judgment titled as Prabhakaran Vs. Gangadharan in Cr. MC No. 5354/2003 passed by the High Court of Kerela in which it was held that once a statement has been filed in a Court of law, that statement can be taken as published. He also referred to the following judgments which enunciates the settled position with regard to the law of defamation as enumerated under Section 499 IPC:-
Queen Empress Vs. MC Carthy (1887) ILR 9 ALL 420 Harbhajan Singh Vs. The State of Punjab and Anr. 1961 CRI LJ 710 Thangavelu Chettiar Vs. Ponnamal AIR 1966 MAD 363 Dr. Madhav Chandra Ransingh Vs. Bijoy Kumar Tripathy and CC No. 9978/16 Ashok Kumar Munna v. Keshav Kumar 7 of 25 PS Moti Nagar Ors. 1995 (2) ALT (CRI) 24 John Thomas Vs. K. Jagadeesan 2001 (2) ACR 1503 (SC) Sopullo Datta Naik Dessai Vs. Yeshwant Govind Dessai and Ors. Manu/MH/1182/2009.
11. It was argued by the counsel Sh. K. K. Arora for the accused that the complainant has failed to establish his case against the accused. The accused has succeeded in showing that the things mentioned in the Writ Petition were not intended to destroy the reputation of the complainant. Further, the same were mentioned on the basis of the knowledge which the accused possessed as the accused has brought on record RTI reply from Delhi Police that accused was a bad character of the area and the accused did not have the knowledge whether this status was withdrawn or not. Also, the mother of the complainant won a civil dispute case filed against the complainant for encroachment and the said structure was also demolished by the order of the Court. The counsel submitted that accused can not be held criminally liable for pursuing his legal remedies before the Court of law and it can not be said that the things mentioned in the Writ Petition has lowered the reputation of the complainant as those facts were stated in good faith.
ORDERS
12. Before adverting to the facts of the case, it will be necessary to go through the provision which makes defamation criminally liable as CC No. 9978/16 Ashok Kumar Munna v. Keshav Kumar 8 of 25 PS Moti Nagar mentioned under Section 499 and 500 IPC and further, the law enunciated in various judgment of the Higher Courts. The same are discussed 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.
Explanation 1.--It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives.
Explanation 2.--It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such. Explanation 3.--An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation.
CC No. 9978/16 Ashok Kumar Munna v. Keshav Kumar 9 of 25 PS Moti Nagar Explanation 4.--No imputation is said to harm a person's reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful.
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.
Second Exception.--Public conduct of public servants.--It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of a public servant in the discharge of his public functions, or respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further. Third Exception.--Conduct of any person touching any public question.--It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever CC No. 9978/16 Ashok Kumar Munna v. Keshav Kumar 10 of 25 PS Moti Nagar respecting the conduct of any person touching any public question, and respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further.
Fourth Exception.--Publication of reports of proceedings of courts.--It is not defamation to publish a substantially true report of the proceedings of a Court of Justice, or of the result of any such proceedings.
Explanation.--A Justice of the Peace or other officer holding an enquiry in open Court preliminary to a trial in a Court of Justice, is a Court within the meaning of the above section.
Fifth Exception.--Merits of case decided in court or conduct of witnesses and others concerned.--It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the merits of any case, civil or criminal, which has been decided by a Court of Justice, or respecting the conduct of any person as a party, witness or agent, in any such case, or respecting the character of such person, as far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further. Sixth Exception.--Merits of public performance.-- It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion respecting the merits of any performance CC No. 9978/16 Ashok Kumar Munna v. Keshav Kumar 11 of 25 PS Moti Nagar which its author has submitted to the judgment of the public, or respecting the character of the author so far as his character appears in such performance, and no further.
Explanation.--A performance may be submitted to the judgment of the public expressly or by acts on the part of the author which imply such submission to the judgment of the public.
Seventh Exception.--Censure passed in good faith by person having lawful authority over another.--It is not defamation in a person having over another any authority, either conferred by law or arising out of a lawful contract made with that other, to pass in good faith any censure on the conduct of that other in matters to which such lawful authority relates. Eighth Exception.--Accusation preferred in good faith to authorised person.--It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject-matter of accusation.
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 CC No. 9978/16 Ashok Kumar Munna v. Keshav Kumar 12 of 25 PS Moti Nagar made in good faith for the protection of the interest of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good.
Tenth Exception.--Caution intended for good of person to whom conveyed or for public good.--It is not defamation to convey a caution, in good faith, to one person against another, provided that such caution be intended for the good of the person to whom it is conveyed, or of some person in whom that person is interested, or for the public good.
500. Punishment for defamation.--Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."
13. The Hon' ble Apex Court in case titled as Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 221, discussed the meaning of defamation and the same is cited as below:-
" ... 23. Meaning of the term "defamation"
23.1. Salmond & Heuston on the Law of Torts, 20th Edn. [Bata India Ltd. v. A.M. Turaz, (2013) 53 PTC 586 : 2012 SCC OnLine Del 5387; Pandey Surendra Nath Sinha v. Bageshwari Pd., AIR 1961 Pat 164 : 1960 SCC OnLine Pat 116] define a CC No. 9978/16 Ashok Kumar Munna v. Keshav Kumar 13 of 25 PS Moti Nagar "defamatory statement" as under:
"A defamatory statement is one which has a tendency to injure the reputation of the person to whom it refers; which tends, that is to say, to lower him in the estimation of right thinking members of society generally and in particular to cause him to be regarded with feelings of hatred, contempt, ridicule, fear, dislike, or disesteem. The statement is judged by the standard of an ordinary, right thinking member of society...."
23.2.Halsburys Laws of England, 4th Edn., Vol. 28, defines "defamatory statement" as under:
"10. Defamatory statement.--A defamatory statement is a statement which tends to lower a person in the estimation of right thinking members of society generally or to cause him to be shunned or avoided or to expose him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or to convey an imputation on him disparaging or injurious to him in his office, profession, calling, trade or business."
23.3. The definition of the term has been given by Cave, J. in Scott v. Sampson [Scott v. Sampson, (1882) LR 8 QBD 491 (DC)] as a "false statement about a man to his discredit".
23.4. "Defamation", according to Chambers CC No. 9978/16 Ashok Kumar Munna v. Keshav Kumar 14 of 25 PS Moti Nagar Twentieth Century Dictionary, means to take away or destroy the good fame or reputation; to speak evil of; to charge falsely or to asperse. According to Salmond:
"The wrong of defamation, consists in the publication of a false and defamatory statement concerning another person without lawful justification. The wrong has always been regarded as one in which the court should have the advantage of the personal presence of the parties if justice is to be done. Hence, not only does an action of defamation not survive for or against the estate of a deceased person, but a statement about a deceased person is not actionable at the suit of his relative."
[Gatley's Libel and Slander (6th Edn., 1960) also Odger's Libel and Slander (6th Edn., 1929)] 23.5.Winfield & Jolowicz on Torts [ (Sweet and Maxwell, 17th Edn., 2006).] defines "defamation" thus:
"Defamation is the publication of a statement which tends to lower a person in the estimation of right thinking members of society generally; or which tends to make them shun or avoid that person."
23.6. In the book The Law of Defamation [ Richard O' Sullivan, QC and Roland Brown] , the term CC No. 9978/16 Ashok Kumar Munna v. Keshav Kumar 15 of 25 PS Moti Nagar "defamation" has been defined as below:
"Defamation may be broadly defined as a false statement of which the tendency is to disparage the good name or reputation of another person."
23.7. In Parmiter v. Coupland [Parmiter v.
Coupland, (1840) 6 M&W 105 : 151 ER 340] , "defamation" has been described as: (ER p. 342) "... A publication, without justification or lawful excuse, which is calculated to injure the reputation of another, by exposing him to hatred, contempt, or ridicule...."
23.8. The definition of "defamation" by Fraser was approved by McCardie, J. in Myroft v. Sleight [Myroft v. Sleight, (1921) 90 LJ KB 883 : 37 TLR 646] . It says:
"a defamatory statement is a statement concerning any person which exposes him to hatred, ridicule or contempt or which causes him to be shunned or avoided or which has a tendency to injure him in his office, profession or trade."
23.9.Carter Ruck on Libel and Slander [Manisha Koirala v. Shashilal Nair, 2002 SCC OnLine Bom 827 : (2003) 2 Bom CR 136] has carved out some of the tests as under: (Manisha Koirala case [Manisha Koirala v. Shashilal Nair, 2002 SCC OnLine Bom CC No. 9978/16 Ashok Kumar Munna v. Keshav Kumar 16 of 25 PS Moti Nagar 827 : (2003) 2 Bom CR 136] , SCC OnLine Bom para 23) "(1) A statement concerning any person which exposes him to hatred, ridicule, or contempt, or which causes him to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency to injure him in his office, profession or trade.
(2) A false statement about a man to his discredit. (3) Would the words tend to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right thinking members of society generally?"..."
14. The Hon' ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Mohd. Abdulla Khan v. Prakash K., (2018) 1 SCC 615 discussed the ingredients for constituting the offense of defamation under Section 499 IPC as follows:-
".... 10. An analysis of the above reveals that to constitute an offence of defamation it requires a person to make some imputation concerning any other person;
(i) Such imputation must be made either
(a) With intention, or
(b) Knowledge, or
(c) Having a reason to believe that such an imputation will harm the reputation of CC No. 9978/16 Ashok Kumar Munna v. Keshav Kumar 17 of 25 PS Moti Nagar the person against whom the imputation is made.
(ii) Imputation could be, by
(a) Words, either spoken or written, or
(b) By making signs, or
(c) Visible representations
(iii) Imputation could be either made or published..."
15. The Apex Court in case titled as Subramanium Swami Vs. Union of India (Supra), also observed as follows:-
" .... 168. For the aforesaid purpose, it is imperative to analyse in detail what constitutes the offence of "defamation" as provided under Section 499 IPC. To constitute the offence, there has to be imputation and it must have been made in the manner as provided in the provision with the intention of causing harm or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of the person about whom it is made. Causing harm to the reputation of a person is the basis on which the offence is founded and mens rea is a condition precedent to constitute the said offence. The complainant has to show that the accused had intended or known or had reason to believe that the imputation made by him would CC No. 9978/16 Ashok Kumar Munna v. Keshav Kumar 18 of 25 PS Moti Nagar harm the reputation of the complainant. The criminal offence emphasises on the intention or harm. Section 44 IPC defines "injury". It denotes any harm whatever illegally caused to any person, in body, mind, reputation or property. Thus, the word "injury" encapsulates harm caused to the reputation of any person. It also takes into account the harm caused to a person's body and mind. Section 499 provides for harm caused to the reputation of a person, that is, the complainant.
169. In Jeffrey J. Diermeier v. State of W.B. [Jeffrey J. Diermeier v. State of W.B., (2010) 6 SCC 243 : (2010) 2 SCC (Civ) 656 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 138] , a two-Judge Bench deliberated on the aspect as to what constitutes defamation under Section 499 IPC and in that context, it held that 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 of the person about whom it is made. In essence, the offence of defamation is the harm caused to the reputation of a person....".
16. Thus, in view of the above discussion, it is clear that the most important ingredient to make a person criminally liable under Section CC No. 9978/16 Ashok Kumar Munna v. Keshav Kumar 19 of 25 PS Moti Nagar 499 IPC is to establish dishonest intention or necessary mens rea on the part of the accused who should have the intention to harm the reputation of the person. Even if, it is established that the words either written or spoken were derogatory, there will be no criminal liability under IPC unless mens rea or the intention not to act in good faith is established. Therefore, it is to be seen whether the complainant has succeeded in establishing all the ingredients under Section 499 IPC or whether his case false within any of the exceptions attached to Section 499 IPC.
17. It is not a disputed fact that the accused was arrested by the police officials of PS Moti Nagar in a kalandra under section 107/151 Cr. P. C. and the accused filed a writ petition bearing no. 2448/06 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi for the quashing of the kalandra prepared against the accused. The copy of the Writ petition is exhibited as CW2/1. The contents of the Writ Petition stands admitted by both the parties. It has been admitted by both the parties that they were known to each other also. The contents mentioned in para 3 of the Writ petition are per se derogatory and the same will also be considered to be published. However, on the basis of the arguments addressed before the Court, it is to be seen whether the same were made intentionally and with a guilty mind in order to lower down the reputation of the complainant. The purpose of filing the writ petition by the accused was to get the kalandra proceedings quashed which was initiated upon the complaint of the complainant. It was imperative on the part of the accused to make the complainant a party and further the things mentioned by the accused in CC No. 9978/16 Ashok Kumar Munna v. Keshav Kumar 20 of 25 PS Moti Nagar the Writ Petition qua the complainant was to address his grievances before the forum which had the authority over the person with respect to the subject matter of accusation. Further, the accused has succeeded to establish that complainant was declared a bad character of the area by bringing on record the RTI reply in this regard by the Delhi Police. No relevant questions disputing the status of complainant as BC were put during the cross examination of the accused by the complainant. However, it is to be noted that as per the reply, the status of bad character was withdrawn after the year 2001. It could not be established beyond reasonable doubt that this fact was within the knowledge of the accused. I would say that the accused acted without any malice while mentioning about the bad character status of the complainant without knowing that the said status was withdrawn. Further, he has also proved on record that there was a case filed against the complainant by his mother for encroachment which was decided in the favour of his mother and the illegal encroachment was also demolished by the order of the Court. Therefore, the mentioning of the encroachment of public land by the complainant in the Writ Petition also appears to be without any ill intention. The Writ Petition was solely filed by the accused for getting the kalandra proceedings initiated against him quashed without any intention to damage the reputation of the complainant in the eyes of the general public. He had preferred an accusation in good faith before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as it was having lawful authority over these parties with respect to the legality and illegality of the kalandra proceedings. In the present case, it is not established that the imputations CC No. 9978/16 Ashok Kumar Munna v. Keshav Kumar 21 of 25 PS Moti Nagar made by the accused were done with the intention to demolish the reputation of the complainant. The case of the accused clearly falls within the purview of exception 8 th to Section 499 IPC. It is a settled law that even if, imputations are found to be derogatory, the same are not enough to make a person criminally liable unless malafide intention on the part of the said person to dis-repute a particular person is established.
18. I would support my above reasoning with the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as P. Sharma (Dr.) Vs. P. S. Popli & Anr. (2001 SCC OnLine Del 1235). The facts of the said case are similar to the case in hand. In the said case also, one party has alleged that his reputation was lowered due to the imputations made by the other party in an SLP filed before the Hon' ble Supreme Court of India. In the above stated case, the Court observed as follows:-
"...7. The offense of defamation consists of three essential ingredients, namely, (i) making or publishing any imputation concerning any person,
(ii) such imputation must have been made by words either spoken or by visible representations, and (iii) such imputation mush be made with the intention, to cause harm or with the knowledge or having reasons to believe that it will harm reputation of the person concerned. Therefore, the intention or knowledge to cause harm are the essential ingredients to CC No. 9978/16 Ashok Kumar Munna v. Keshav Kumar 22 of 25 PS Moti Nagar constitute the offense under Section 499 IPC.
Exception 8 provides that it is 'not' defamation to prefer, in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who has lawful authority over that person, with respect to the subject matter of accusation...".
".... Thus, accusation made in good faith to those who have lawful authority over the person so accused is protected by the exception. Reference in this regard can be made to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajender Kumar Sitaram Pandey v. Uttam, AIR 1999 SC wherein it was held:
" The question for consideration is whether allegations in the complaint read with the report of the Magistrate make out the offense under Section 500 or not. Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code defines the offense of defamation and Section 500 provides the punishment of such offense. Exception 8 to Section 499 clearly indicates that it is not a defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with regard to the subject matter of accusation...
...9. Admittedly, copy of the complaint along with connected documents were filed by the petitioner CC No. 9978/16 Ashok Kumar Munna v. Keshav Kumar 23 of 25 PS Moti Nagar with the Special Leave Petition. The whole emphasis in the Special Leave Petition was to get the complaint quashed. It is apparent, that the imputation was preferred in good faith by the petitioner to get the order of summoning quashed. This imputation cannot be said to have been made with the intention or knowledge to cause harm to the reputation of the petitioner. The accusations were made before the Supreme Court which undoubtedly had authority over the subject matter in dispute. Thus, even if, the allegations made in the complaint are taken to be true, in my view, no offense of defamation is made out...".
19. Similarly, in this case also, it can not be held that the imputations were made by the accused with the knowledge or intention to harm the reputation of the complainant. His sole intention was to get the proceedings quashed. Further, he has been able to raise probable defense with regard to the fact that complainant had the status of bad character in the PS Moti Nagar and he has also encroached upon the property of his mother and the said encroachment was also demolished by the order of the Court. Even if, the imputations are derogatory, the same are not found to be made with the intention or knowledge to cause harm to the reputation of the complainant. Thus, the essential ingredient that the imputation must be made with the intention or knowledge to harm the CC No. 9978/16 Ashok Kumar Munna v. Keshav Kumar 24 of 25 PS Moti Nagar reputation of the complainant are not established. Therefore, in view of the entire discussion stated as above, I am of the view that the accused was acting in good faith to protect his legal rights and for the quashing of the kalandra proceedings initiated against him without any intention to harm the reputation of the complainant. Accordingly, the accused stands acquitted for the offence under Section 500 IPC.
Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2020.01.16
13:34:32 +0530
Announced in open Court (ABHISHEK KUMAR)
on 08th day of January 2020 Metropolitan Magistrate
West-05, Delhi
CC No. 9978/16 Ashok Kumar Munna v. Keshav Kumar 25 of 25
PS Moti Nagar