Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manmohan Agrawal vs Dr. Rahul Parashar on 1 February, 2018
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
M.Cr.C.No.9072/2011
(Manmohan Agrawal and others Vs. Dr.Rahul Parashar)
Manmohan Agrawal and Others............................petitioners
Versus
Dr.Rahul Parashar .............................................Respondent
For the petitioners : Ajay Mishra, learned Sr. Counsel with
Mr.Sanjeev Mishra.
For the respondent : None, though served.
******
Present: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN
******
JUDGMENT
(01.02.2018) The present petition has been preferred under section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioners herein for quashing proceedings in complaint case No.2961/2006, whereby the order dated 28.07.2005 passed by the Court of learned JMFC, Chhindwara, cognizance of an offence under section 500 of IPC for defamation, was taken against the petitioners herein. The petitioners no.1 to 3 are associated with the Dainik Bhaskar News Paper in their capacity as Chief Editor, Editor and local Editor respectively.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows. A news article was printed in the Chhindwara Edition, of the Dainik Bhaskar, which is marked and annexed herein as Annexure-P/3 of the petition. It bore a news article with the headline "ccZjrkiwoZd fudkyk ckfydk ds nkrks dk dsi ". In the said article an emotional reportage of an incident that had taken place with a young girl aged 8 years was published whereby, a Doctor (Dentist) had initially disclosed Rs.8000/- as the expenditure for capping four of her teeth. The said amount was paid to the Doctor in two installments by the father of the child. However, subsequently, the Doctor is stated to have inflated the expenditure for the procedure to Rs.40,000/-. Upon the amount not being paid by the father of the girl, the Doctor is stated to have removed the caps forcibly in the utmost barbaric manner resulting in pain and bleeding to the child. It is pertinent to mention herein that there is no name of the Doctor who had treated the child and neither is the name of the hospital mentioned in the said news article, where the procedure is said to have taken place.
3. The respondent filed a complaint case under Section 200 of Cr.P.C against the petitioners seeking their prosecution under 500 IPC on account of his fair name being besmirched on account of the reportage. The complaint is 3 annexed as Annexure-P/2 from page 17 to 20 of the petition. The Doctor has denied that he had ever committed any kind of malpractice and in paragraph-4 of the complaint, gives the sequence of events on various dates on which he was approached. He further states that the amount of expenditure that was to be incurred in the procedure was also disclosed to the father of the child.
4. In the complaint case, in all there are five accused persons which includes the father of the child. The complaint does not disclose as to how the respondent is able to assert that he is the Doctor who has been referred to in the news article. The respondent has not even alleged innuendo for the libelous publication. In paragraph-6, the respondent states that he did not barbarically remove the four caps which were implanted on the tooth of the child which only goes to show that there has been no denial on the part of the respondent that the said caps were indeed removed by him.
5. This Court is of the opinion that the petition deserves to succeed. A defamation by way of libelous publication can be direct or by innuendo. It is direct when the person so defamed is named in the publication. The defamation by way of an innuendo is only committed when the material in the publication by inference can refer only to the person so defamed in the eyes of public.
6. In the instant case, the article has no reference point on the basis of which it could be said that the Doctor referred to in the said article is the respondent and the respondent alone. Such a situation may have arisen if the name of the clinic was disclosed in the said article on the basis of which the public at large or those who know the Doctor, can arrive at the conclusion that it was the respondent who was referred to in the said article. The article is extremely general in its nature and character and is completely devoid of a inference point on the basis of which an inescapable inference could be drawn by anyone reading the said article that the person damned by the said article, was the respondent and no one else.
7. Under the circumstances, the offence under section 500 of IPC has not been made out against the petitioners. Therefore, the petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners in complaint case No.2961/2006, pending in the Court of the learned JMFC, Chhindwara, along with the order taking cognizance and summoning the petitioners to stand trial dated 28.07.2005, is quashed.
(Atul Sreedharan)
rk Judge
Digitally signed by RAVI KANT
KEWT
Date: 2018.02.02 02:01:25
-08'00'