CRIMINAL MISC. NO.M 22570 OF 2008 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 13, 2011 The Times of India, Chandigarh and another .....Petitioners VERSUS Raman Behl and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Anand Chhibber, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. M. S. Bedi, Sr.Advocate with Mr. A. K. Joshi, Advocate, for respondent No.1. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. An Editor of a newspaper Times of India and one of its Correspondent have prayed for quashing of the complaint dated 31.7.2006 and the summoning order dated 23.12.2006 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur, under Section 500, 500/109 IPC pending against them. Petitioner No.2 got a news item published in the newspaper on 27.7.2006 containing allegations made by one Anoop Singh of Pathankot against the respondent-Raman Behl of he having been duped of Rs.17.50 lacs, which he had raised by selling his land CRIMINAL MISC. NO.M 22570 OF 2008 :{ 2 }: with a promise that when he needed, he would repay him double the amount. Having made this allegation, Anoop Singh further alleged that the money was not being returned, which was taken about 6 years ago and he accordingly threatened to immolate himself before Behl's house, if money was not returned. Aggrieved against this defamatory news-item published by the petitioners, respondent No.2 filed a complaint before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur, under Sections 500 and 500/109 IPC, alleging that his reputation has been damaged and tarnished in general public. After recording the evidence, the Magistrate had summoned the petitioners on 23.12.2006. The petitioners have accordingly filed this petition for quashing of the complaint and the summoning order. The petitioners would submit that the facts contained in the statement made by Anoop Singh were duly verified on the strength of an affidavit submitted by him and that having satisfied itself that affidavit executed by Anoop Singh was duly attested by Executive Magistrate, the petitioners had published this news item in the newspaper. Accordingly, it is urged that this news item was published in a good faith after due verification of the statement of Anoop Singh and this would be a complete defence to the offence alleged against the petitioners under Section 500 IPC. The petitioners are relying upon the 9th Exception as contained under Section 499 IPC. This Section defines the offence of defamation as under:- “Whosoever by words either spoken or intended to be read or by sign or by visible representations, make or publish any imputation concerning any person intending CRIMINAL MISC. NO.M 22570 OF 2008 :{ 3 }: to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such persons, is said, except in the case hereinafter accepted, to defame that person.” Having defined the defamation in the above terms, the Section contains certain explanations and exceptions. It would be useful to reproduce the explanations under this Section as well as the 9th Exception, which is relied upon as a defence to the charge and the summoning order against the petitioners:- “Explanation1. It may amount to defamation to impute anything to deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful so the feelings of his family or other next relatives. Explanation 2: It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such. Explanation 3: An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation. Explanation 4: No imputation is said to harm a person's reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person in respect of his cast or of his calling or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state in a state generally considered as disgraceful. Ninth Exception:- Imputation made in good faith by CRIMINAL MISC. NO.M 22570 OF 2008 :{ 4 }: person for protection of his or other's interest. It is no defamation to make an imputation on the character of another provided that the imputation be made in good faith for the protection of the interests of the person making it or of any other person, or for the public good.” No doubt, the 9th Exception provides that it is no defamation to make an imputation on the character of another provided that imputation be made in good faith for the protection of the interest of the person making it or by any other person or for the public good. However, this is required to be proved that the publication was in a good faith or for a public good as failure to prove that a defamatory statement is made in a good faith and it is for protection of interest of a person making it or of any other person or for public good, would exclude the application of exception. Not only that, in order to claim good faith the accused must show that before making the alleged imputation, he had made enquiry with due care and attention and that he was satisfied about the truth of imputation. The emphasis is on enquiry, care and objectives and not subjective satisfaction. (See Sukra Mahto Vs. Basudeo Kumar Mahto and another, AIR 1971 Supreme Court 1567). Apparently, the petitioners had satisfied themselves only on the basis of an affidavit given by Anoop Singh and whether this would be a sufficient enquiry, care and objective to fall within the exception primarily would have to be seen by the Trial Court and can not be so determined on the basis of affidavit annexed with the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It has also been viewed that mere belief in the truth of the allegation is not sufficient to establish good CRIMINAL MISC. NO.M 22570 OF 2008 :{ 5 }: faith. Such belief should be based on rational grounds. In order to establish good faith and bonafides, it is required to be seen that (i) the circumstances under which imputation was made or published (ii) whether there was any malice (iii) whether the accused made any enquiry before he made the allegation and (iv) whether there are reasons to accept the version that he acted with care and caution (v) whether there is preponderance of probability that the accused acted in a good faith. In short, the good faith requires care and caution and prudence in the background of the context and circumstances. Reference in this regard can be made to Chaman Lal Vs. The State of Punjab, AIR 1970 Supreme Court 1372. It is viewed that good faith will be negatived by recklessness indicative of want of due care and attention and the question of good faith is always a question of fact. To establish good faith, it is sufficient to show from the material on record by adducing evidence that there is preponderance of probability in his favour. It would be no defence for an accused to say that he acted on the information given to him by another and that he must establish that the source of information on which he has acted was a proper source on which he was entitled to act or justified acting and that he did so with due care and circumspection. Similarly, where the imputation is allegedly made for public good, it is again a question of fact. Accordingly, all these aspects are required to be established before the Trial Court and it would not be appropriate to invoke jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to cut-short the prosecution of the complaint made by the complainant-respondent in this case. Reference here can be made to State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. CRIMINAL MISC. NO.M 22570 OF 2008 :{ 6 }: Awadh Kishore Gupta and others, 2004(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 233, where it is held that the Court can not assume the role of Trial Court to say that the allegations made against the petitioners, on the basis of material, would not ultimately stand proved or not. That will be the role of Trial Court. Thus, no case for interference is made out under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the complaint and the summoning order. The petition is accordingly dismissed. October 13, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE