Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

I feel this father‟s tragic story has a strong resonance across the length and breath of India. Indian parents wager everything they have for their children‟s education and in most cases, get nothing in return. While it is good to see private investments in education, there is also occasion for serious concern. Year after year, these „private‟ institutes churn out so-called professionals who don‟t stand a chance in the job market. Four years back I decided to intervene in one such case and took out an advertisement against one such institute, the Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM). I was hoping that I would be challenged in court. Our ad suggested that all claims made by IIPM were wrong or misleading. I knew there were too many skeletons in their cupboard and, if taken to court, they would stand exposed. So, no, they didn‟t take us to court.

6. Learned Shri Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Advocate appearing for the petitioners in Crl.M.C. No.4234/2009 and learned Shri A.J. Bhambhani, Advocate for the petitioners in Crl.M.C. No.4235/2009 have argued on almost similar lines.

7. Firstly, it is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the impugned summoning order dated 30.09.2009 is bad in law as the allegations in the complaint coupled with the evidence led by the respondent No.1 in inquiry do not make out a case under Section 500 or 501 IPC. It is contended that the article published in the magazine "Outlook" under the title "Racket Game Lobs" is not defamatory as it had been published in good faith with the intention to caution unsuspecting students from believing the claims made by Indian Institute Planning and Management (for short "IIPM"). Learned counsels for the petitioners submitted that the learned Magistrate has failed to appreciate that the aforesaid article published in the magazine "Outlook" falls within the Ninth and Tenth Exception to the offence of defamation as defined under Section 499 IPC. It is further contended that otherwise also, the complaint filed by the respondent No.1 is an abuse of process of law as it has been filed with the motive to overreach the order passed by the High Court in civil jurisdiction on 01.05.2009. Expanding on the argument, learned counsels submitted that feeling aggrieved by the publication of aforesaid article, IIPM filed a suit for injunction, being CS(OS) No.442/2009, against the petitioners seeking to restrain them from publishing any defamatory article in the magazine "Outlook" against the plaintiff IIPM. Learned Single Judge on 05.03.2009 passed an ex parte order restraining the petitioners from publishing any defamatory article against the plaintiff. Said order, however, was modified by the learned Single Judge on 01.05.2009 in the following terms:

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has submitted that the plea of the petitioners is untenable in law for the reason that the article published by the petitioners is per se defamatory and it has been published with mala fide intention to harm the reputation of the respondent No. 1 company. It is further contended that the plea that the case of the petitioners falls within the Ninth and Tenth Exception of Section 499 IPC is in the nature of defence which is to be proved by leading evidence. It is also contended that the respondent No. 1 was not a party to the civil suit filed by IIPM, as such, it cannot be said that the complaint filed by the respondent No. 1 is an attempt to overreach the order of the civil court, particularly when the IIPM and respondent No. 1 are two separate organizations.

14. On reading of the above, one gets an impression as if respondent No.1 is in conspiracy to cheat unsuspecting students and in furtherance of the conspiracy, respondent No.1 provides short term employment to the students from IIPM with mala fide intention to enable IIPM to make a false claim regarding very good placement record of the students who pass out from said institution. The aforesaid content of the article is per se defamatory and derogatory to the image and name of respondent company. The author of the article has not named the source of his information. It is not the case of the petitioners that before publishing the article, any attempt was made to contact the respondent No.1 to verify the aforesaid allegation of short-term placement of students passing out from IIPM in M/s Planman Consulting India Pvt. Ltd. with a view to jack up the placement ratio. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that the article has been published in good faith to bring the case of the respondent within the purview of Ninth and Tenth Exception to Section 499 IPC. The contention of the petitioners that their case falls within the Ninth and Tenth Exception to Section 499 IPC is a question relating to the merits of the case, which cannot be determined while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as it would require evidence which is subject matter of the trial.