Jharkhand High Court
Mahesh Prasad Singh vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr. on 11 April, 2012
Author: R.R.Prasad
Bench: R.R.Prasad
In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
Cr. M. P. No.1388 of 2006
Mahesh Prasad Singh ................ .......Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Jharkhand and another.........Opposite Parties
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD
For the Petitioner: Mr.Anil Kumar
For the State : Mr.S.P.Jha, A.P.P
8/ 11.4.12. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the State. No body appears on behalf of opposite party no.2.
This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 7.7.2006 passed by the then Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in Complaint Case no.129 of 2006 whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code was taken against the petitioner.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being Head of the Department of Forest Science, Faculty of Forestry, Birsa Agricultural University, Ranchi asked several persons to put forth their view points on 'Flora of Jharkhand'. Pursuant to that, opposite party no.2 submitted its view point on 21.12.2005. On receiving the same, a letter dated 27.12.2005 was written to the opposite party no.2 stating therein that Ph.D done on the thesis 'BIRD BLOOD' is the exact duplicate of Ph.D thesis of Dr.S.C.Yadav, who had done Ph.D in the year 1972 whereas you have done it in the year 1996. It was intimated therein that copies of both the thesis are available in the library of Patna University.
On getting that letter, a complaint was lodged by the opposite party no.2 which was registered as Complaint Case No.129 of 2006 putting allegation that the petitioner by writing a letter, copy of which was given to Director Research and all Heads of he Department of Faculty of Forestry intimating therein the thesis of the coplainant is a duplicate copy of the thesis of Dr.S.C. Yadav, offence of defamation has been committed as by writing that letter imputation has been made to harm his reputation. On such complaint, cognizance was taken which is under challenge.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner by writing a letter to the opposite party no.2 and also to other authorities has simply communicated about the fact which was existing and it would be evidently clear from that letter wherein it has been stated that presently both the thesis are available in the library of the Patna University. There has been no allegation in the complaint that on making verification of the thesis of Dr.S.C.Yadav, it was found that it was quite different than the thesis submitted by the complainant. In such event, the petitioner cannot be said to have made imputation to harm reputation of the complainant and as such, the order taking cognizance is fit to be set aside.
A counter affidavit has been filed whereas same fact has been reiterated which is there in the complaint.
Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it would be relevant to note down the extract of the letter which, according to the complainant, amounts to imputation of reputation which reads as follows:
"Ph.D thesis is in Zoology on "Bird Blood" which is exact duplicate of Ph.D thesis of Dr.S.C.Yadav, Professor of a.N.College, Patna, who had done Ph.D in 1972 on same bird on which you have in recent past (1996) acquired ph.D. Degree. Dr.S.C.Yadav has done Ph.D under the supervision of Dr.V.Banerjee of Patna University. Presently, both the thesis are available in the library of Patna University."
Thus, the question does arise as to whether the statement made in the said letter as indicated above is an reiteration of factual fact or it amounts to defamation in terms of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code which reads as under:
"499 - Defamation - Whatever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, make 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 harmful 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."
From perusal of the aforesaid provision, it does appear that whosoever by word or by any other means makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the person who makes or publishes such imputation is liable to be punished under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.
From perusal of the aforesaid defamatory part of the letter, it does appear that the petitioner has simply stated that thesis submitted on "BIRD BLOOD" by the petitioner is exact copy of the thesis submitted earlier by Dr.S.C.Yadav. Further it refers that both the thesises are available in the library of Patna University. By making reference of the last line that the thesises are available in the library of the Patna University, the petitioner never seems to have intended to harm reputation of the complainant.
It be stated that it is not a case of the complainant that on making verification of both the thesis, he did find that thesis submitted by Dr.Yadav the word 'Bird Blood" is quite different than the thesis submitted by the petitioner.
In that view of the matter, statement made in paragraph 1 of the letter never amounts to defamation. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case no.129 of 2006 including the order dated 7.7.2006 is hereby set aside.
In the result, this application is allowed.
( R.R.Prasad, J.) ND/