IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL C-482 No. 583 of 2008 M.R. Sivaraman @ another .......… Petitioners Versus Dev Lahiri ........... Respondent Mr. S.K. Aggarwal, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. S.S. Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, learned counsel for the respondent. Hon’ble V.K. Gupta, J. Counter has been filed. Learned counsel for the parties submit that this petition be disposed of today itself. Heard the detailed arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In the complaint filed by the sole respondent against the two petitioners and some others the allegation is that by putting on the website of the Lawrence School, Lovedale, Ootacamund Nilgiris, Distt. Tamil Nadu the report, the finding and the gist of the Board of Governors, the petitioners have deliberately acted in a manner to defame the respondent and thus committed the offence of defamation under Section 499 read with Section 500 IPC. The alleged material constituting allegedly the defamation is contained in para 9 of the complaint which, in fact, is an extract from the minutes of the meeting of the Board of Governors held on 18.02.2008. For ready reference para 9 of the complaint containing the aforesaid para 9 of the minutes of the meeting is reproduced hereunder which reads thus: “9. That even as the matter stood thus, the complainant was shocked to hear of the defamatory and mala fide statement put on the website of the School by the accused. The Statement relates to the minutes of the meeting of the Board held on 18.2.2008 in which it has been stated thus: “9. The Board considered the report by the internal Auditors on various administrative and financial lapses alleged to have taken place in the School when Mr. Dev Lahiri was the headmaster. The Board concluded that there had been serious financial irregularities which had also been highlighted in the various annual statutory audit reports of the School. Apparently, no action has been initiated against anybody for these lapses. As Mr. Dev Lahiri, the then H M has left the School way back in the year 2000 there appeared to be no possibility of initiating any disciplinary proceedings against him at this stage.” Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shatrughna Prasad Sinha versus Rajbhau Surajmal Rathi and other reported in (1996) 6 supreme Court Cases 263. In para 13 of the aforesaid judgment their Lordships of the Supreme Court, while dealing with the scope of interference with respect to an allegation of defamation, have observed as under: “13. As regards the allegations made against the appellant in the complaint filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, at Nasik, on a reading of the complaint we do not think that we will be justified at this stage to quash that complaint. It is not the province of this Court to appreciate at this stage the evidence or scope of and meaning of the statement. Certain allegations came to be made but whether these allegations do constitute defamation of the Marwari community as a business class and whether the appellant had intention to cite as an instance of general feeling among the community and whether the context in which the said statement came to be made, as is sought to be argued by the learned Senior counsel for the appellant, are all matters to be considered by the learned Magistrate at a later stage. At this state, we cannot embark upon weighing the evidence and come to any conclusion to hold, whether or not the allegations made in the complaint constitute an offence punishable under Section 500. It is the settled legal position that a court has to read the complaint as a whole and find out whether allegations disclosed constitute an offence under Section 499 triable by the Magistrate. The Magistrate prima facie came to the conclusion that the allegations might come within the definition of ‘defamation’ under Section 499 IPC and could be taken cognizance of. But these are the facts to be established at the trial. The case set up by the appellant are either defences open to be taken or other steps of framing a charge at the trial at whatever stage known to law. Prima facie we think that at this stage it is not a case warranting quashing of the complaint filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate. Ist Class at Nasik. To that extent, the High Court was right in refusing to quash the complaint under Section 500 IPC.” According to Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, the material contained in para 9 of the complaint is per se defamatory and because it was put on the website of the school and since the website was open to being viewed by everyone, the offence under Section 499 read with Section 500 IPC has been made out. Mr. Aggarwal, learned Senior Cousnel appearing for the petitioners on the other hand has relied upon Section 4 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, 2005 Act). According to Mr. Aggarwal, putting on the website the aforesaid material was an act committed by the petitioners in the exercise of their power as well as responsibility under Section 4 of the aforesaid 2005 Act and, therefore, is a valid defence against the charge of defamation. Having considered the aforesaid rival contentions and upon a careful reading of the complaint, especially para 9 thereof, I feel That no case for interference by this Court in the exercise of this Court’s jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is made out. According to me, the learned Magistrate was justified in taking cognizance of the complaint and issuing the summoning order. On its plain reading the complain ex facie does suggest that the offence might have been committed. I am saying so because according to me the contents of the alleged defamatory material do relate to the respondent and do suggest that the respondent perhaps can be said to be aggrieved by the publication thereof. In so far as Mr. Aggarwal’s contention relating to Section 4 of 2005 Act is concerned, my prima facie view at this stage is that perhaps this section has no applicability to the case of the parties. Therefore, any defence relating to or arising out of this Section is not available to the petitioners. However, it shall be open to the petitioners to raise any such issue before the trial court at the appropriate stage of proceedings in the trial. As far as this Court is concerned, in my considered opinion, this is not a fit case where the interference by this Court in the ongoing proceedings is warranted, because the petitioners have failed to establish prima facie case warranting interference by this Court. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is dismissed. I however wish to observe that nothing stated herein shall be construed as any expression of opinion by this Court about the merit of the case as trial of the case is concerned. (V.K. Gupta, C.J.) 15.10.2008 Avneet