JBL-iu''^*tAff(!'1.'WI;::'y^".;^'-;S^iSfei£'A:~hT^r^:.-inm.r:l/<'w'.A">^^ m TBS^^BlG CQiUSS:W.. J Ai^ME:AKSIX.^^^ ' CHHAl'TISGAIQET ; :• :: .' ":•:'-". . ^! ::. CRIMINAL.:MISC.PETITIONiST0.5'^ '%F 200'? S. Abiraman, S^ R. Sivasharikaran, aged about 40 years, R/o 166 Muthuymayagar Koil St., Thiruvannanialai-(Tamilnadu). i ^'^u^ W''T^^^0^ iliv'i'^ .1®^ RESPONDENT/ C'OMPLAmANT '^^.^^-^^^ ^b. Versus . ' - . &^t?c^'O.T^<^cwi^(t1 S;M. Sarangajpani^aged about ?8 years, R/o Q.No.l/B-43, Pumpi Hpuse, SEGL Colony, Korba, Districtl Korba(CG). PETTTION,IUNTOER^SEeTIOM:.-^21.iX)F. :.T1BE :.CQDEi-';:-OF; ,C<RBIINAE^RO^EDlJRE:.F(^^Q»Smffi3T]'HE!.^ <I^]VtPLAE'?i,.:£'Ai]@,T' DIN@i jffiURaE-iKjnKgilffi JiIVIA^STR^IIi'.Itli^'lGLASS^ N0.820 OF 2007; \^ HieH GOURT OF CHHATTTS6ARH AT BILASPUR Sjngle Bench ; Hon'ble Mr. Cr.M.P. No. PETmONER Justice Pritinker' of 2007 e.r S. Abiraman S.M. Saron Shri B.D. Suru, eounsei for the. petitioner. Shri AA.K. Baea, counsel for the respondent. PETEtION UN&ER SECTION 482 OF THE CO&E OF CRIOTNAI PROCE&URE. Present petition fiied under Section 482 of the Code of Crimina! PTOcedure is for quashment of the crim'nd proceedings pending before ths Judicia! Magistrote, Fii'*st Class, Korbo.in Complaint Case No. 820/2007 by which takin( cognizance, the cour-t beSow has reaister-ed the case agai'nst the petitioner" on 19.10.2007 for ths offence under Ssction 500 Qf the Indian Penal Code. 2. Brief fccts of the cass are that on 4.9.2006 a compiaint case was fiied by the respondent under- Section 200 of the Code of Crimlnal Procedure praying in it thot a case be registered ogain.st the respondent for* committing th-e offence underSection 500 of the India" Fena! Cods.It has been contended that respondent S.Abiroman is a practicing iawyer at District Court, Thlr'jvannamalai, TGmilnodu and ho.d issued legal notice to the complainant/Fespondent on 13.3.2003 under instructions of Smt. S. Bavani (wife of the eomplaincmt S.M, Sarongpan!) to stop certain uncai'ed for activities. 3. Contention of counse! for the. compjainant/respondent is thet copy of this legal notice ho.s been sent to many authorities such as Superintendsnt of Police, Korba, Director ©enera!of Police, ChhattisQarh, Chairman. State Human Rights Commission and the Dir'ector Gener-o', of Pojice, CRPF, Chief Minister, Hon'ble Ghief Justice of the Stcte ond Hon'bSe the Chief Justice of India and thereby the petitioner ho.s defamed . him. 4. In his statement "ecor-ded under S^ctlon 200 of the Code of Crimlnal Procedure, the complainant/respondent ha.s -made the simiiar aiiegations in paragraph 10 A 11 and hos stated that on account of issuancs of the said. no+ice by the petitioner", he Has been dsfamed. The main grievance of the complaincsit is thot the Isgai notice which hsd. been sent to him ond copy of the same had dso been circuiated to number of officers, has caused a grsat defamation to him. Though this al'egation ho.s bsen made by the compiainc.nt about forwar'ding the copy of the iega! notice to various authorities, atong 'A'ith ths complaint no such document has been fited by the compiainant confirminQ this fact. In the absence of ony documentary evidence r-egardina sending th®copy of iegal notice to different persons, merely on the oral ststement of the compiainant it cannot be accepted that the iega! notic®was served to various authorltes. Even if the legal notice dated 13.03.2003 isseen, it is clear that no endorsement who.tsosver has been made by the petitioner to any of the authorities. Moreover, it is only a lega! notice sent by the petitioner to the complainant and that too under the outhority of his ciient which does not reflect that any defamatory word whotsoever has been used by the petitioner in it. Evidence of the compiainant mskes It clear th.at the respondent/complainant has no grievcuice against his wife Smt. S. Bavani under whose instructions the legal notice is oJieged to have been issued and she hois not been arrayed as accused. 5. In the matter of Ra.iendra Kumar Sitorsm Pande le con; Code i1 others v. Uttam & another (supra) exception of Section 499 of Indian by the Supreme Court in para 7 of the "7. , The next questiors that orises for consideration is whether readina the compiaint ond the report of the Treasury Officer which was obtained pursuant to the Order of /Aagistrate under sub-Section (1) of Section 201, can it be said that a prima facie case exists for- trial or- Exception 8 to Section 499 ciearly appiies and consequently in such a case, cailing upon the accused to face triai would be a travesty of justice. The gravcmien of the diegations in the compiaint petition is that the accused persons made a comploJnt to the Trecsury Officer, Amravati, containlng faise imputations to the effect that the compidncnt • had come to the office in a drunken state and abused the Treasury Officer, Additionai Treasury Officer and the Coiiector and circuiated in the office using filthy ianguage and such imputations had been made with the intention to cause damage to the reputation and services of the complainant. In order to decide the cor-rectness of this averment, the Magistrate instead of issuing procsss had calied upon the Treasury Officer to hoid on enquiry and submit a reporf- and the said Treasury Officer did submit a report to the Magistpate. The quastion for considerotion is- whether the ollegations in the complaint read with the report of the AAagistrate make out ,;•:••',^a~aa?!^ "^ s &. ft '""<iBS "\ ' ~^^ •"'~^-' © the offence under Section 500 or not. Section 499 of ths Indian Penal Code defines the offence of defamation and Section 500 pr'ovides the punishmsnt for such offence. Exception 8-to Section 499 cieariy indicates that it is nota defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation again&'t my person to any of those who have lawfui authority over that person with regard to the subject-matter of accusation. The r-eporl- of the Treasury Officer cleariy indicates thot purajant to the report made by the accused parsons against the comptainant, a departmenta! enquiry hsd been initiated and the complainant wss found to be guiity. Under such circumstances the fact that the accused persons had made a report' to the supsrior officer of the con\p\amarrt a\teynQ~thar he had abused the Treasury Officer in a drunken state which is the grcrv'amen of the pres.ent complaint cnd nothing more, wouid be covered by Exception 8 to Section 499 of the Indian Penai Cooe. By perusing the ailegations made in the compiaint petition, we are aiso satisfied that no case of defamation has been made out. In this view of the matter, requiring the accused persons to face trial or even to approach the toaqistrate afresh for reconslderGtion of the question of issuance of process would not be in the interest of justice. On the other hand, in our considered opinion, this is a .fit case for quashing the order of issuance of process wd the proceedings itseif. We, ther'efore, set aside the impugned order of the High Court' aind confirm the order of the iearned Sessions Judge and quash the criminai proeeeding itseif.. This appea! is allowed." 6. The word 'defomation' has been defined in Section 499 I.P.C. which lays down as under-;- "499. Defomation :- Whoever", bywords either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible repressntatioh-s, M ' r:i5 :t\ ''33|| J? ^'SB-'^ y makes or pubtishes any imputation concerning any person intending to h-Qrm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of aich, person, is said, except in the coses hereinafter excepted, to defsme thst persons." From the aforesaid provisions, necessary ingredients which are discernibie are as under :- (i) Making or pubiishing ony imputation concerning any person; (ii) such. imputation must have been mo.de by:- (a) words either spoken or intended to be read; or (b) signs; or (c) visibie representation. (iii) imputation must have been macie with intention of harming or knowing or having reason to beiieve that such imputation will be horming the rep-itation of the person concerned to whom it is made. 7. The above r-equirements of the section ieave no manner of doubt that intention tp cause h.arm is the ver/ foundation of the offence under Section 499 I.P.C. The manifestation of the intention has to be gathered from the accusa+ion made in the communication to any oiuthority as to whether thsy intend to lower the non-appticcnt in the estimation of others. Such a situation arises when the imputations ars made publ'.c. Otherwise the maker of the imputations wsthout pubiicatiori would not be liable under this Section. ^ifi'. €^ w- ^' Fr^m I'he^TOoi^ ofthepresent c<^e it is dppo^r!^ 1|Ke pe1-i1'ibns!gbeing^anAdyoca^^(Kmere!yissuedth&|m^ tothe^complainarftcOTdthattooafter^^^r^ from his clierrt'. 3^ is appercOT^ 1'hiit' no publrcffti^ ^as been macle by tfe ge^il'ion^ stretch df imagindtion |t cen be^said thot tl'le pet-itipner' jids coused any defiamation to •t-he complfflinanf. 9. In view ^of the abov^ dl^ssiQn, this Court' is g^^^ considered ^imon thsf | is a f;iti eas^ fe quasNng' 1-Ke criminal proceedir^sof cpn|g!fiiR|'€e^^NQ.:8%0/2Q^ pespondent/eomplairr!-. Th&leFrntirraiJJpl^^dings in^^ comptaint case No. 820/20'©Z;dt-e;3< 10. Petition is tKusailoweGt. Qfi Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge .;' :••• '^-•' 11 I'i