Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

. 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.

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."

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.