Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.17 seconds)
Anil Kumar Jharkhadiya vs R.K. Khare @ Pappi Khare on 11 May, 2018 cites

Anil Kumar Jharkhadiya vs R.K. Khare @ Pappi Khare on 24 January, 2018

7. From the above, it is evident that the offence of defemation 6 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC.2537/2018 (Anil Kumar Jharkhadiya Vs. R.K. Khare @ Pappi Khare) punishable u/s 500 IPC was alleged by the complainant / respondent herein based on the act of petitioner informing the Editor and publisher of the news paper about the complainant being involved in illegal trade of kerosene. 7.1 The act of informing the newspaper is not in any manner relatable to discharge of official duties. In the considered opinion of this Court, a Dy. S.P. in discharge of his duties as a police officer is neither required nor expected to inform any newspaper or media personnel about commission of certain alleged crime which comes to his knowledge. This kind of act of informing the newspaper about any crime can neither be treated to be directly related to the act of discharge of official duties or to act in purported discharge of official duties.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

D T Virupakshappa vs C Subash on 27 April, 2015

6. The cases of D.T. Virupakshappa and Manorama Tiwari (supra) relied upon by the petitioner, relate to the cases of negligence by a Govt. Doctor while treating the patient which resulted into death and police excess during investigation. The case at hand, which is reflected from the complaint vide Annexure A-4 filed by the respondent is that the complainant claiming himself to be the Manager of District Central Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. Teh. Ghuwara, Distt. Chhatarpur alleged that his complaint of misdemeanor and misappropriation of funds against officials in the bank fell on deaf ears.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 125 - Full Document

Manorama Tiwari vs Surendra Nath Rai on 10 September, 2015

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner / accused by relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of D.T. Virupakshappa Vs. C. Subhash reported in (2015) 12 SCC 231 and Manorama Tiwari and Ors. Vs. Surendra Nath Rai repoted in (2016) 1 SCC 594 submits that the complaint alleged that the petitioner - Dy.S.P. gave information of the act of respondent being involved in the business of illegal trade of kerosene, in the local newspaper which published this item as headline thereby causing defamation of the respondent / victim.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 8 - Cited by 25 - P C Pant - Full Document
1