Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.21 seconds)Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
State Of Bihar Etc. Etc vs Kripalu Shanker Etc. Etc on 28 April, 1987
7. It is seen from the above judgements that when defamatory allegations are made in judicial proceedings, that can be a cause of action for filing a private complaint against the person concerned. The learned Judge in Crl.R.C.No.784/2009 (cited supra), relied upon the Fifth Exception to Section 499 IPC and also relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Kripalu Shankar [(1987) 3 SCC 34] and held that pending matters are immune from comments made by the parties. With great respect, I am unable to agree with the observations made by the learned Judge.
Dr. J. Sudarshan vs R. Sankaran on 16 August, 1991
10. As stated supra, whether the imputation was made in good faith or not has to be decided only during trial and at this state, it cannot be considered. As per the judgements in Dr.J.Sudarshan v. R.Sankaran [1992 CRI.L.J. 2427], M.N.Damani v. S.K.Sinha and Others [AIR 2001 SC 2037] and Sewakram Sobhani v. R.K.Karanjia, Chief Editor, Weekly Blitz and Others [(1981) 3 SCC 208], this Criminal Original Petition is not maintainable.
Sewakram Sobhani vs R.K. Karanjia, Chief Editor, Weekly ... on 1 May, 1981
10. As stated supra, whether the imputation was made in good faith or not has to be decided only during trial and at this state, it cannot be considered. As per the judgements in Dr.J.Sudarshan v. R.Sankaran [1992 CRI.L.J. 2427], M.N.Damani v. S.K.Sinha and Others [AIR 2001 SC 2037] and Sewakram Sobhani v. R.K.Karanjia, Chief Editor, Weekly Blitz and Others [(1981) 3 SCC 208], this Criminal Original Petition is not maintainable.
M.N. Damani vs S.K. Sinha And Others on 2 May, 2001
In M.N.Damani v. S.K.Sinha and Others [AIR 2001 SC 2037], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that private complaint against the respondents therein alleging that they made imputations against the complainant in the application filed under Section 436 CrPC can be a basis for prosecuting the respondents for the offence under Section 500 IPC and whether imputations were made in good faith or not, have to be decided during trial and the Hon'ble Supreme Court also relied upon the judgements in Sewakram Sobhani v. R.K.Karanjia [(1981) 3 SCC 208] and Shatrughna Prasad Sinha v. Rajbhau Surajmal Rathi [(1996) 6 SCC 263] and held that private complaint is maintainable in respect of defamatory allegations made in judicial proceedings.
Shatrughna Prasad Sinha vs Rajbhau Surajmal Rathi & Ors on 10 September, 1996
In M.N.Damani v. S.K.Sinha and Others [AIR 2001 SC 2037], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that private complaint against the respondents therein alleging that they made imputations against the complainant in the application filed under Section 436 CrPC can be a basis for prosecuting the respondents for the offence under Section 500 IPC and whether imputations were made in good faith or not, have to be decided during trial and the Hon'ble Supreme Court also relied upon the judgements in Sewakram Sobhani v. R.K.Karanjia [(1981) 3 SCC 208] and Shatrughna Prasad Sinha v. Rajbhau Surajmal Rathi [(1996) 6 SCC 263] and held that private complaint is maintainable in respect of defamatory allegations made in judicial proceedings.
M.C. Verghese vs T.J. Ponnan & Anr on 13 November, 1968
The learned Judge in the above cited judgement also relied upon the judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in M.C.Verughese v. T.J.Ponnan [AIR 1970 SC 1876] and State of Bihar v. Kripalu Shankar [1987 (3) SCC 34] and held that if any defamatory article or statement is made in a judicial proceeding, that can be a cause of action for filing a private complaint for the offence under Section 500 IPC.
Tiruvengada Mudali vs Tripurasundari Ammal on 15 February, 1926
5. I have gone through the judgement reported in 1992 CRI.L.J.2427. The learned Judge in that case considered the Full Bench judgement of this Court in Tiruvengada Mudali v. Tripurasundari Ammal [AIR 1926 Mad 906], wherein it has been held that no absolute privilege attaches to averments in a criminal complaint made in Court but that the privilege is qualified in the sense, that the defamatory statement must have been made in good faith.