BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (c.G.) Cr. M. P. No. \iwg Of 2007 PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEQURE, 1973. APPLICANT :— K.I.T., VERSUS NON—APPLICANTS . . Dr. Pramod Kumar Shriwastava S/o Late Vishnu Sewak Shriwastava, Aged about 59 years, Caste; Shri'wastava, Occupation— Principal, Civil Raigarh, R/ o Line, Behind resident of Police Superintendent, Raigarh, Tahsil 8L District Raigarh (C.G.) [ACCUSED] 1. Rajeev Nayan Singh S/o Shri Ram Singh, Aged about 34 years, Occupation”- Deputy Registrar (suspended) K.I.T., Raigarh, R/o Opposite of offlce of the Jute Mil Labour Union, Raigarh, Ta'hsil 81, District Raigarh (C.G.) ~ [COMPLAINANT] ‘ l HAm§£§ARH A? EELééwg e Nara 3usi'icz ?ri&inkar {wiwakzar CtMi? N9.'4$8 9f ZQG? H H IGH COURT C3? (: Singlg Band: z Han‘b! Dr‘. Pramaé Kumar Shriwasmvu A?PLICANT Versus Rajeev Nayon Singhéx am? § for The wpiicam, hz‘r'. NON—APPLICANTS Shri. SK. Tiwari, wunsg v None Shr§ .9ankaj for fhe ShrWasTcvq non—ap‘piican? No. 1. PL for fhe S’rme/nowapyiicm? CR1$KK§~$AL CTION 482 OF THE CG§E OF F§CCEEU§E . OR‘QER' (;i.G3.ZQIQ) r' Secfior‘ 4-82 ax? the Cade of pmcaadings m? PET 6E—yNbER 52 Present pew‘i'Hon féKgd unde is for quashing tha crimind ed by néh—appiicam Ne. 1 f thz offence Crimingl Procgdum templmm cas befar'e Chief Jud a Ne. 3831’3QG7‘ fa iciai Magisfr'm‘a, Raigwh c under Secticm 500 af The Ind‘mn Pencd Cade. msa am ‘i’ha? an 29.12.20Q6 a Z‘ Brief has 9f we compkxint cage was he is wwking as Depmy lnsirh‘u‘te c suspensign. Iir i Principal sf ih posting as Principai, he is aiieged Thai from “the. beg'm and applicant has no? cccepied his 2g,5:ZQQé g fgisg wharf was iadgaé aggim‘i aicm’r No. 1 waging in i1: The Kirodimcd and pmsen’dy under Egan? is working as e said I&s?§m‘r.icn and fmm ? hg day of his that fHad, by non—app Ragisfmr in f Te¢hm§ugy, Raigarh s digger: ‘rhm’ grgsant app 1i is furthér KM ed him iiegad than” avgn We iiccsiian cmd has Shawn from the duty cmci in cgn’iinu(Him of ihe same 0n Eiasgd gigging? him. hing ”ma appiimm has harass has alga iried To defgme h iaave app im. I? is' a him absent ihg non—appiicani mnwmw ’ : @ No. 1 aHeging in if ma? he had sfolen cer‘rain afficial record and the IisT of These dacumems has been annexed by The applicam‘ along with The campmint I? has also been submitted ‘ fhaf The concerned S’m‘Hon House Offker‘ 0f The poiice sfm‘ion i.e. Cify Kuiwali, Raigarh has made enquiry and found fhaf m; ThefT whatsoever has been commitfed and ”then he submiffed 1‘he report 1‘0 fhe Superiniendem cf Pohce, Raigarh. Accoréing f0 fhe complainant, This hcf of fhe applicam emcunfs 1‘0 his defqyna’rien and fherefore he be prosecuted. nrecdrding the statement of the camplainant under Sect bO‘m‘the Code cf Criminal Praceduret Learned trial Judge has teken the cagnizcmce in the case and had issued the notice to the present appltccmt on 01,03‘2Q01 Order of the Magistrate was assailed by the appiicant by filing a revisian before the Sessions Judge, Raigarh and the iesrned 5essions Judge has granted stay in favour of the oopiiegnt on 28‘3200? (Annexure P-7). Subsequently, on 4.8.ZOQ? the oppiicont withdrew the said revision as according to him the same was not mointainabie and then he hos tiled the present petition, 4. Contention of the counsei for the oppiioant is that even if the entire oomploint ease is taken as it is, offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out as the complaint was made by the applicant in his official capacity when he was working as Principal of the institution. He submits that though the paiice authority has not taken any action against non-appiicant No. 1 iout finding was given in the said enquiry that the non-applicant No. 1 had kept with him the relevant cash book and ledger, however, he is wiiiing to return the some: He further submits that in View of this finding given fé i’ by The concernad p0 :cg officer If cannm‘ be acud that repom‘ as iadged by The appiscanf agamsf fhe non-appiscanf Na 1 was faige m" wac: filed wwh gr: m gnfmn m dafgmg mm He submlfs fhe‘r being Supwso?‘ Officer- he was discharging has du‘rv m The 'm‘eres’r o: fhg Tmflfuhan and fher'efor'e 'T cannot be said That he has dame any defamahan He submrrs ‘rhm‘ at fhe relevan’r mme n0n-apphcan? Na. 1 was under suspensmn and im‘er on he was «1350 fermmwed. Accarding 1‘0 imcse cf The appiicam‘ wcu§d Came in 'rhe 8T“ & 9*“ excepfion 99 of Indian Pena§ Cede and Therefare the emire erve +9 be qgashea He has placed stmm reliance on The Judgmem of +he Apex Caum‘ m The maf‘rer' of Bmendra Kumar Sammm §°ande 8: whers v. U‘nmm & gnome!" repar’red in AIR 1999 5ugr'eme Court 102g. 5. I have heard caansei fer The apphcam end perused the maTeriai avaibbk on recard. 6a From the reccrd, it is apparent? fhm‘ a? The relevanT Time The apphccmT was werking as Prineipcd cif Kimdima! lnsTiTuTe cf Technelogy, Raigarh whereas The non-eppITeenT No. .1 was Depu‘ry RegisTmr' (under suspension) cf The said insTiTuTion) From The recnrd iT is aéso deer TheT cerTein efficiai records perTaining To The Cohege were noT submiTTed by The non- apphcanT No 1 To The msTTTuTion md Therefore, reporT of ThefT was lodged on ZSJLZOQé To The concerned pohce sTqTion Le. CiTy KoTwaEi Raigarh‘fhe anewry reporT makes iT clear ThaT non-apphconT No 1 had kepT The record wHTh him however The acTlon was noT Taken agomsT him because he showed his desire To. reTurn back The same. ‘ \hg io‘n 4 s T of mesa who have. lawful awhor‘i‘ry over that person wHh regard Ta tiqe subjecT—muffer af accusa‘l’ien The repor‘f of The Treasur'v Officer Cleariy Indicafes Tho? pursuan’r to fhe repor’r made by me accused pervsans agcumf fhe compiamcm‘r a deparfmewd enquiry had been mmm‘ed and The compiamam‘ was found 1‘0 be guIHy Under such cwcumsfances fhe faCT 1'ha1' fhe accused persons hm made o r‘epor‘f fa the superior oificer- o1 fne conplaman. oHegmg fhm‘ he had abused The Treasury Officer m a drunken sm're whsuh is .fhe grovomen of the presen+ compiainT and ihmg more wouQd be covered by txcepwon 8 faeohon 499 of The Indian ?enai Looe 3y perusing fhe miegofiom mode m foe compiam’r pe'rmon we are cdso scms‘ued fhoft no coee of defamafion has been made out In fhis View of fhe moffer requiring fhe accused persons f0 face Trio! or even To approach The Mag sfrco‘e afresh for recongderororr of fhe quesfion of Issuance of process wouid no? be m the inferesf of justice On fine ofher hand; in our considered _ opinion, fhis is a fi‘r case for quoshing ‘ihe order of issuance of process and fhe proceedings ifseif‘ We, ”therefore, sew“ aside The'impugned order of fine High'Courf and confirm fhe order of The learned Sessions Judge and quash fhe criminai proceeding ifseif. This oppeai is allowed.” 8‘ The facf remains fhof core issue fo be decided i whefher lodging of such FIR before ‘a‘he police sfofion in fhe capacity of Principoi of fhe Ins’rifuie would omouni To defomoTion and Con be consTrued as pubiioofrion wiThin The ombiT of SecTion 590 I.P.C: The word ‘defomaTion', has been defined in SecTion 499 1P,C. whioh loys down as under :— “499. DefomoTion :— Whoever, by words eiTher spoken or inTended To be read, or by signs or by yisibie represenTaTions, ‘ o a s ‘ makes or publishes any impumfign censer-ning any parscn im‘ending to harm, or kncwing or- having reason m believe 3*ha? such impu'rm‘igr: wii? harm, The reputation of such persan, is said, ex¢epi in the cases hereinafter excep’ied, m defame iha’r persons." From The afaresaici provisions, nacessary ingredienis' which are discernible are as under :- \1 (i) Makin9 car Pgbiishina .1 anY impuia'ricn concerning 235w I h imggumfign mus? have been mada by :- (9.) wards gia‘hgr speken 9r intendgd fc'bg read; er (b) signa‘: or, s "\ (c) visibie represeni’aiion. (iii) impumiion must have been made with infenfion cf harming or knowing or having reason To beiieve 'Thof such impufcn‘ion wiii be harming The repumfion of The person concerned To whom if is made. 9, The above requirements of The section ieove no manner of doubfr Thai intention To cause harm is The yery foundoTion of The offence under SecTion 499 I.P.C. The manifesToTion of The inTenTion has To be goThered from The accusaTion made in The communicaTion To any ouThoriTy as To wheTher They inTend To iower The non-appiicanT in The esTimaTion of OThers. Such a if siTuaTion arises when The impuTaTions are made pubiic. i OTherwise The maker of The impuTaTions wiThouT pubiicaTion would noT be liable under This SecTion. 10. In The presenf case, The applicant was working as Principa! 0f The Ins’rifufion and had lodged fhe repcrf before pah'ce s’rm‘ion because The hen-applicant Na; 1 was na'r ramming the cfficial record‘ His action was sa‘rictiy in accordance wi‘rh law and even in fhe enquiry repar'f of The police h‘ has come Thatfhe non-applicanf No. 1 had kem‘ The record with him, under- no stre’mh cf imagina‘rion, fhe ac? 0f npplicanf can be farmed as causing defam‘afian of The non— . 1. 11‘ Thisfouri' is of The considered opinion Thai’ iT is a fiT case for quashing The criminal proceedings of complain? case. ’No. 383/2007 filed by non—applicanT No. 1. The criminai proceedings in respecT of complaim‘ case No. 383/200? are quashed. 12. PeTiTion is Thus allowed, J ' : 3d,_ - yritink‘er Diwakr a , Judge i No J f ‘