Chattisgarh High Court
Dr. Saroj Parhate vs S.K. Manjhi on 4 October, 2023
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRMP No.2250 of 2023
Dr. Saroj Parhate D/o Moreshwar Parhate, Aged About 49 Years R/o At
Present G-204, Jainam Planet Near Aims Tatibandh G.E. Road Raipur
District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. S.K. Manjhi S/o Shri Panchanan Manjhi, Aged About 60 Years (Retired
Assistant Superintendent) R/o 164, Naval Vila, Professor Colony, Sector
-1, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. Dr. G.R. Chaturvedi S/o Shri Budhelal Chaturvedi, Aged About 56 Years
Professor And Head Of The Department, Body Composition, R/o
Narayan Prasad Awasthi, Government Ayurveda University, G.E. Road
Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3. Dr. Harindra Mohan Shukla S/o Shri Ramendra Narayan Shukla Aged
About 52 Years R/o 11, Nagar Road Near Maharashtra Mandal, Choube
Colony Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. Another Address Reader
Panchkarm Department, Narayan Prasad Awasthi, Government
Ayurveda University, G.E. Road Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
4. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Raipur, District:
Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate
For State : Mr. Shakti Singh Thakur, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
04.10.2023
Heard.
1) This petition has been filed against the order dated 19.05.2023
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Revision No.13/2022, whereby the Criminal Revision preferred by the petitioner/complainant has been dismissed.
2) The facts of the present case are that the petitioner is working on the post of Professor and Head of the Chemistry Department and at present, she is posted at Government Ayurvedic College Raipur (C.G.). Respondent No.1 is the Assistant Superintendent in the same college, respondent No.2 -2- is a Professor and President of 'Shikshak Sangh' and respondent No.3 is a Reader Panchakarma and General Secretary of 'Shikshak Sangh' in the same Institution. An anonymous complaint was made against the petitioner making an allegation that she is sexually abusing the students of Government Ayurvedic College. On such complaint, the Secretary of the Family and Health Department passed an order to conduct an enquiry and later on, the complaint was found to be false and baseless. Thereafter, the news was published in the daily newspaper "Haribhoomi" on 20.12.2018 assassinating the character of the petitioner making false, disrespectful assumptions and sensational allegations that the students had said that a woman Professor is doing sexual harassment.
3) The petitioner filed a complaint case against the Editor and Journalist of the 'Haribhoomi' Newspaper. It is further alleged that respondent No.1, who is an admin of a Whatsapp group, circulated the news article published in Haribhoomi Newspaper in two groups and according to the petitioner, respondents No.1, 2 & 3 are commonly trying to harm the reputation of the petitioner to avenge as when the petitioner was the Chairman of 'Vishakha Committee' of the Government Ayurvedic College, some orders were passed against respondent No.2.
4) The petitioner initially lodged a complaint before the Saraswati Nagar Police Station but no action was taken and thereafter, another complaint was made before the Superintendent of Police, Raipur (C.G.) on 30.12.2018 and when no action was taken, she filed a complaint case before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.) under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. for registration of offence punishable under Section 66(A) and 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short, 'the IT Act') and Sections 500 and 509 of the IPC against the respondents.
3
5) Vide order dated 02.11.2021 learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur (C.G.) dismissed the complaint case on the ground that provisions of Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. as held in the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Priyanka Shrivastava and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in 2015 (6) SCC 287 have not been complied with.
6) A criminal revision was preferred by the petitioner before the learned Additional Sessions Court, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) and vide order dated 19.05.2023, the learned revisional Court held that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shreya Singhal Vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 2015 SC 1523 has declared the Section 66-A of the IT Act as unconstitutional as it was violative of the right to freedom of speech and expression. With regard to Section 67 of the IT Act and Sections 500 and 509-B of the IPC, the learned revisional Court held that the ingredients of these Sections are not available and thus, dismissed the revision.
7) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a false news article was published in the newspaper in connivance with respondents No.1 to 3 and the same article was circulated or transmitted in the WhatsApp group by respondent No.1. He would further submit that such circulation or transmission of news article has tarnished the reputation of the petitioner. He would also submit that according to the provisions of Section 67 of the IT Act, whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be published or transmitted in the electronic form, any material which is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect is such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it, shall be punished as provided under the Section. He would further contend that the news article transmitted in electronic form was obscene and -4- harmed the reputation of the petitioner and thus, ingredients of Sections 500 and 509 of the IPC and Sections 66 & 67A of the IT Act are clearly made out against respondents No.1 to 3 but the learned Courts below committed an error of law in dismissing the complaint case as well as revision filed by the petitioner.
8) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the petition.
9) Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the documents placed on record.
10) It would be advantageous to go through the provisions of Sections 67 of the IT Act and Sections 500 and 509 of the IPC which read as under:
"67 Punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form. -Whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be published or transmitted in the electronic form, any material which is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect is such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it, shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees and in the event of second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years and also with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees.
S.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. S.509 Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman.--Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and also with fine.
11) From a perusal of Section 67 of the IT Act, it is quite vivid that if any person transmits or causes to be published or transmitted in the electronic form, any material which is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect is such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, 5 having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it, shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent to three years and with fine which may extent to five lakh rupees.
12) Section 499 of the IPC defines 'Defamation' which reads as under:
"S.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.
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."
13) In the present case, an enquiry was conducted by the Secretary of the Family and Health Department and the allegations made against the petitioner were found false and a news article was published in the newspaper. According to the petitioner, the news article was not correct and correct facts were not published in that regard. Respondent No.1 transmitted the news article in the WhatsApp group and it is not a case that respondent No.1 created a fabricated news article and transmitted it in the -6- WhatsApp group, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the offences punishable under Section 67 of the IT Act and Sections 500 and 509 of the IPC are not made out.
14) Thus, the learned revisional Court has not committed any error of law in dismissing the revision preferred by the petitioner.
15) Consequently, the present petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha