Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohammad Ahsan Haji Mohd. Suleman vs Haji Abdul Majid Thekedar on 7 August, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1997(1)MPLJ371
Author: J.G. Chitre
Bench: J.G. Chitre
ORDER J.G. Chitre, J.
1. Heard Shri A. S. Kutumble, Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Z. A. Khan, for the non-applicant.
Shri Kutumble for the petitioner submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has committed the error in quashing the process which has been issued by Judicial Magistrate First Class Indore who took the cognizance of the complaint of applicant alleging that the non-applicant had committed an offence punishable under provisions of section 500, Indian Penal Code for defaming him as indicated by provisions of section 499, Indian Penal Code. Shri Kutumble pointed out that the resolution which has been passed by the so called body which has been led by the non-applicant, was excommunicating the applicant from TELI SAMAJ INDORE', and that has caused his defamation. He submitted that by that publication, the applicant has been lowered down in the estimation of his caste persons and others. He pointed out that the character or the moral of the applicant has also been lowered down in the estimation of caste persons and others because of the said act of non-applicant and his associates.
2. Shri Kutumble, further submitted that the said resolution is the publication of imputation against the applicant which comes under the purview of section 499, Indian Penal Code. He pointed out that the learned Sessions Judge, Indore has not considered this aspect of the matter and has landed in error of quashing the process which has been issued by the J.M.F.C. Indore who took the cognizance of complaint of the applicant. Shri Kutumble urged that the said order which has been passed by the Sessions Judge, Indore be set aside and the trial Court be directed to continue further with the proceedings of the complaint which has been filed in that Court by the applicant.
3. Shri Z. A. Khan, counsel for the non-applicant submitted that the order of the Sessions Judge, Indore is correct, proper and legal. He submitted that this petition be dismissed.
4. If that resolution dated 14-4-1990 is read as it is, it falls short of requirement which has been indicated by section 499 of Indian Penal Code which provides -
"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."
Thereafter explanations 1, 2, 3, 4 have been provided.
5. In the present matter no doubt there is resolution in writing, which prima facie shows that non-applicant was a party to it. It may have caused difficulties in the way of the applicant in respect of settling the marriage etc. as alleged by him. Apart from that that resolution is not containing any imputation made against the applicant. That resolution shows that the persons who were parties to that resolution decided to not invite the applicant for marriage ceremonies. If that resolution is read as a whole, it does not make out any imputation which has been made against the applicant. It appears to be a case in which some action has been taken by the non-applicant and some other persons in respect of not inviting him to participate in marriage functions etc. It further shows that they have taken action of removing him from the caste. All that has been done without making any imputation against the applicant.
6. For the purpose of making out a case for an offence which has been indicated by section 499, Indian Penal Code which is punishable in view of section 500 of Indian Penal Code of which court should take cognizance, the complainant is obliged to make out a prima facie case on all important factors indicated by section 499, Indian Penal Code. The complainant has to show that some imputations were made by accused which should be clearly mentioned in the complaint, which are sufficient to bring the act of accused in four corners of definition provided by section 499, Indian Penal Code. He has also to make out a prima facie case that the act of the accused has not been 'saved' by explanations indicated. It is the bounden duty of the complainant to make out a prima facie case of an offence allegedly committed by the accused.
7. The order, which has been passed by the learned Sessions Judge read as a whole, shows that he has considered all necessary facets. I do not find anything wrong in the approach which has been taken by the learned Sessions Judge in quashing the process which has been issued by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore against the non-applicant. The order which has been passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Indore is correct, proper and legal. It needs no interference from this Court. Thus, this petition stands dismissed.