IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 48 of 2005 1. Suniti Singh W/o Sunil Singh 2. Sunil Singh S/o Late J.F. Singh R/o Mohalla-Heera Dungri Police Station Almora District Almora ………. Applicants Versus Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora and 08 others ..…. Respondents Present : Sri M.C. Kandpal, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri S.S. Chaudhary, Advocate present for the applicants. Smt. Seema Sirohi, Advocate present for the respondent Nos. 3 to 9. Sri M.A. Khan, Brief holder for the State/respondent Nos 1 & 2. Dated : 03rd August, 2011 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. By way of this Criminal Misc. application moved under section 482 Cr.P.C., it has been sought in the affidavit annexed therewith to quash the complaint dated 12.08.2004 titled as Suniti Singh and another Vs. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora and others, nay the summoning order dated 17.09.2004. It appears that Suniti Singh W/o Sunil Singh and Sunil Singh himself alongwith few others making their illegible signatures, wrote a letter to the then Chief Minister, Government of Uttarakhand on behalf of all Christian Society residing at Almora wherein the conduct of Rajeev Masih Kalifa, P. Laindrik, Robinson Das, Admilar Whelar, Sanjeev Laransh, Sangeet Singh, Ashok Anthoni and Gajendra Singh Parihar was complained of. In that complaint the subject matter was a hostel of students, which is part of the Ramje Inter College, based at Almora. 2 Certain allegations to the effect of ruining the windows, doors, ceiling and furniture were made and it was prayed that some independent enquiry be conducted regarding the above act of these persons taking the assistance of few other Bihari miscreants. Learned counsel on behalf of Rajeev Masih and others have argued that an enquiry was conducted wherein all the allegations were found not true. So after the result of enquiry, this Rajeev Masih and others, named above, felt defamed and filed a complaint i.e. criminal case No.400 of 2004 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora for the offence under section 500 I.P.C. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate recorded the statement of Rajeev Masih under section 200 Cr.P.C. and took cognizance in the matter. In the cognizance order, learned Magistrate summoned Sunil Singh and his wife Suniti Singh for the offence under section 500 IPC, while dropping the complaint for rest of the accused persons. Feeling aggrieved, Sunil Singh and Suniti Singh have come up by way of this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel of either side, it is worthwhile to go through the provision of Section 499 IPC, which defines the term “Defamation”. The relevant portion of this term ‘defamation’ is quoted as below :- “499 Defamation.- Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such persons, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, do defame that person. 3 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, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste 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, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful. Third Exception.- Conduct of any person touching any public question - It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of any person touching any public question, and respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further.” On going through the above provision, the term ‘defamation’ envisages the harm or defamation in the estimation of the general public and that too if the conduct of any person is touched regarding any public question, notwithstanding any harm to the reputation, such an act will not amount to a defamation. In the instant case, a letter was written to the Chief Minister, Uttarakhand and that was not manifested to the general public at large. It was adverted neither by the petitioner conspicuously nor was made available by Chief Minister himself or by the government to cause harm in reputation of the opposite party in the estimation of general public. That apart, the contents of the letter adumbrated the issue regarding a hostel of intermediate college, which is used for students for taking education in that college. In that way, it is a public issue and question can be raised, if welfare of public hostel is damaged by opposite party. Thus, both ways, the letter written to the Chief Minister by any stretch of imagination, was not tentamount to defamation as is envisaged by statutory provision of Section 499 4 IPC (supra) so the order of cognizance passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate is interfereable. In view of the above, the impugned order is quashed. Criminal Misc. application is allowed. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) JKJ 03.08.2011