BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR {C G ) E.CR.s,NQ. 222‘) /2006 Sing§% WSW Bal Bhyasai Arora, aged about 50 years, son of Shri DD. Arora, msident of Officer Colony, Dhamtari presently posted as Deputy Director, Agriculture, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENT Suml Kumar Dewangan, aged about 42 years, son of Shn Satyanarayan ‘ Dewangan, resident of Matrayee Vihar1i~r"?%:’ Colony, Damtari, presently posted as Rural Agricultural Extension Officer, ’Dhamtari (CG) ‘ ¢ f OPETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE. OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 FOR QUASHING/CRIMINAL COMPLAINT CASE NO 375(2006, PENDING IN THE COURT OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DHAMTARI 1C GI AND OR UASHING OF ORDER DATED O .2006 BY WHICH ’ OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 500 OF IPC HAS BEEN REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONER HléH COURT QF GHHAm§§ARH AT ‘BILA$?UR $ingle, Bengh .: Hgn'big Mr. Justigg Priiinkgr Eiwgkgr cr.M.P. Na. 2239 0f 2cm APPLICANT Ba¥ Bhyasmi Amm 59:1, 9f Shri DD" ' Arom Versus REsPONDENT .Sumi Kumgr' Dgwangan, am 9f Shri Smyanamyan Dewangan x Shri B=Da @ru, cgunse! f9!" The appgicgm, w? Shri Q S Pmel counse§ for The resmndent. PETITION UNDER $ECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF {:RIMINAL PKGé‘EUURn: ; O R D E R (1Q.Q3.ZQIQ) Present petition fiied under 5ecfian 482 cf The. Cade of § ‘ Criminal Pmcedurevis for quashing Criminai Campiaim Case Nay 375/2006 pending before The Chief Juéisiai Magisfrm‘ag" DhamTari and fcr' qua5hmen’r af fhe order dated 21‘04200é passed by !earned Magisfmm by which We cognizance has been Taken against i’he appiicam’ for fhe offence under Sec‘rion 500 of The Indian Pena! Code” 2. Brief focis of the case. are tho? on 163.29% a sompioinf case was filed by The respondem against The oppiiconf oiieging in it that he is working as Rom! Agricuifumi Extension Officer in The office of The Depu‘iy Direcfor‘, Agricuifure, Disi'r‘icrf Dhamfori whereas The oppiicom‘ is working as Deputy Director, If is alleged The? fhe oppiicam is having malice ageins’r The complainant/respondent, as a resuif of which he is harassing \x? him for one reason or the other end. i5 aieo ‘ihr'ecifening fo deportmenfoi aofion against him. He has fLir'fhei“ submi‘ifed r Thaf while parfarming the éovemmen? duiy, The applican? has embezzled the omaun? of Rs, 2,97,00Q/- and to sava hémseif from The said embezziemem‘, he is making aliegaficn againsf him. IT has also bean submiTTed Thad enquiry waS canducfed by The Disfric‘t ColiecTor‘, Dhammr‘i and an order was passed ”w recover The said gmgun’r frgm ‘l’he gwiicam, hgwever, despite fhe said order, applicom’ is defammg him IT has alsc» been submitted that applicant has made cm iiiegoi effort to recaver the amount tram. him, as a result at which the respondent/cpmpiainant was competied ta appraaah the High Courté Accord‘iag‘ to the complainaht, the appéicant is spreading the news everywhere that the campiainaat has done the embezzlement and even he is trying ta cantact the press reporters for getting the news pubiished. ‘4‘ '5‘ 3. In support ct his case, the compiainant got recorded his statement under Seetion ZQO of the Cede of Criminai Procedure and the statements at twa other witnesses namely Kamlesh Nirmaikar (CW—Z) and AAA. Fahim (CW-3) have aiss been recorded, 4. Vide order dated 21‘4.2006, iearned Chief Judicial Magistrate has directed for registration of the case against the applicant for the offence under Section 500 of the Indian * Penal Code and the entire proceeding is under challenge before this Court. it is to be noted that whiie entertaining the present petition, on 24.7.2006 this Court has granted stay in faxiour of the applicant. 5. It has been argued on behaif of the applicant that present is a case where the complainant was working as sobordinote empioyee of the applicant and as he was soloiected m departmental action, hg was Trying m put undue pressure upon The appiicam and Thu? is why he has Edged 1kg absglu’re false case against The appHcanT. He further submi‘rs mo? The y applicant has every right to take action against the respondent as The respcndem” is his subardinafe anci passing any administrative crder' wiii not amcunt to commit cffence under- Section 500 cf the Indian Pena! Code. He submits that case of i the applicant sauareiy falis‘in the Eighth exception of Section 499 of Indian Pena! Code, and therefore, the entire as? _pr‘oceeding§ deserve to be quashed. He further- submits that on 21 10 2005 Vide Annexure A 6 the applicant had Issued tho recovery order and had directed that amount at Rs 2 97 000/- be recovered from the compiainant/respondent. He submits ’ that prior to the issuance of order dated 21.10.2005, a show cause notice was aiso issued to the compiainant/respondent on 25.7.2005 (Annexure A—7) and thereafter, second show-cause notice was aiso issued on 233905 (Annexure A-8). He submits that if such proceedings are altowed to continue then it would be very difficuit for any superior officer to take action against any of his subordinate officer. He has piaced strong reiiance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Rajendra Kumar sitaram Pande at others v. Uttam d: another [(1999)3 r.‘....“MN 5C6 134]. 6. On the other hand, it has been argued by counsel for the respondent that ali the actions taken by the applicant have compelled the compiainant to approach the High Court’and the High Court has granted stay in favour of the applicant in Writ Petition No.6292/2005 and that itself shows that the entire action initiated by the applicant was illegal. He further submits : Thai ange ThevMggisTm’rg has axemisgd its jwis¢é§ian affar due appHcm‘ian of mind, fhis Céum‘ may m? Warfare in such ma’r’rer‘s. He has placed reiiance on the Judgman'r m‘ Apex Cour? in thg matter 9f Bdmi Khanng c3; what‘s v. Mwi Ram ‘repor’red in AIR 1971 5C 1389. 7. A bare perusal of The,campiain‘r and the stafemem‘ of The witneéses makg if very clam" fhg‘r basicaliy the cdrixplainan‘rfr'espondenf is aggrieved ugainsf The applicanf because he .had preposed ’rhe departmental action agains't him. i as The correefneés of The order passed by The appiieam‘ air The ; departmem‘a! ievel cannof be adjudicqied eifher by This Cour? in the present case er by the learned Magistrate in the complaint filed under Secticn 500 of the Indian Penal Code: It appears that there are some persanal vengeance between th respondent/Camplainent and the applicant, as a resnlt 0f which complaint was filed. The eighth exception of Section 499 of IndianlPenal Code makes clearly indicates that it is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that :, person with regard to the subjeet-matter of accusation. 8. Though, the efforts are made by the complainant to I show that the applicant is trying to‘publish the said news in the 1 newspaper but admittedly tiil date no such news has been published in the newspaper. Mere apprehension or allegation of L the complainant will not bring his case within the ambit of Section 500 of the Indian Pena! Code. [3 _/_xw~4m_4 N e" 10: In Thg mcmgr‘ ofW Rgigndm Kumgr sitamm Pande é others v. Ufmm é another (supm) whilg considar‘ing aighfh exception 0f Sec‘fien 499 of Indian Penal Coda it hd5 been held by The Suprems Cour? in para 7 of The judgment. “.7, The next qugsfien Thai? arises fer cans§derufion is whether reading the campiaint and the report of the Treasury Officer which was obtained pursuant to‘the Order of Magistrate under sub-Section (I) of Seétion 201, ean it be said that a prima facie case exists for trial or Exception 8 to «2x. as Section 499 ’cleariy applies and consequently in such d case: caiiing upon the accused to face triai wouid be a. travesty of justice. The gravamen of the aiiegations in the comptaint petition is that the accused persons mode a complaint to the TreasJry Officer, Amravati; containing faise imputations to the effect that the complainant had come to the office in a drunken state and abused the Treasury Officer, Additionai Treasury Officer and the Collector and circulated in the office using filthy language 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 correctness of this averment, the Magistrate instead of issuing process had called upon the Treasury Officer to hold an enquiry and submit a report and the said Treasury Officer did submit a report to the Magistrate. The question for consideration is whether the allegations in the complaint read with the report of the Magistrate make out the offence under Section 500 or not. Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code defines the offence of defamation and Section 500 provides the punishment for such offence. Exception 8 to Section 499 clearly indicates that it is not a defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful mthority oventhat person with regard to the subject—matter of WI accusation. The report of the Treasury Cfficer clearly indiCates that pursuant to the report made by the accused persons against the complainant, a departmental enquiry had been initiated and the complainant was faund Ta be. guii’ry‘ Undzr' such circumsmnces The fam Tha’r The accused persons had made ‘a repor? *0 .The superior officer- of fhe complainanf aileging fhm‘ he had abused fhe Treasury Officer in a drunkéu 3mm which is We gravamen of The presenf compiain’r and ncfhing mom, wou!d be covered by Excepfion 8 1’0 5ecfion 439 of fhe indian Penai Code. By perusing fhe uiiegations made in fhe complain? pefifion, we are aiso satisfied fha? no case of defamafian has been made out In fhis view of *rh matfer, requiring ”the acgused perscns f0 face Ma! or even fa approach The Magis‘trafe afresh for reconsidemfion of the quesfion of issuance of "sorocess would noi be in 'ihe inieres‘i of Jusiice. On The other hand, in our considered opihion, ihis is a fii’ case for quashing ‘rhe order of issuance of process arid The proceedings ifseif. We, iherefore, sci aside ihe impugned order of “the High Couri and confirm the order of ihe iearned Sessions Judge and quash the criminal proceeding ifself. This appeal is aliowed." “ 11. The faci remains ihai’ core issue ”m be decided is whe‘rher sending of depari'menfal no‘rices is ‘rhe complainan‘i amounts io defema’rion and can be construed as publicmicn within the ambit of Seciien 500 LRC. The word ‘defame’rion’ has been defined in Seciicn 499 LRC. which iays down as under :~ “499° Defamation :- Whoever, by words ei’rher 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 heoson to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is soid, except in the oases hereinofter excepted, to defame that persons" From the oforesoid provisions, necessary ingredients which ore disoernibie ore es under :— e (i) Making or' pubiishing any impufcmen canceming (my ’ person; (ii) such imputation mus? hava been made byw (a) wards zéfher spckan or intended m be rmd; or (b) signs; or- (c h; visible represantm‘ion‘ a g (iii) impumiicn must hgve baan made wi’rh in’ren’rion (if har‘ming or knowing or- having reason To beiieve thaj’ such § impumfioin‘ will be harming The repumiion of The person concerned 1’0 whom if is made. 12. The above requiremenfs of ihe section leave m manner of daubt ’rhofr intention TO cause harm is the very foundatian of the offence under Section 499 I.P.C. The manifestation of the ‘ N inieniion has Tc be gafhered fmm The accusa’rion made in The ccmmunicqiion to .any cuJThor'iTy as to whether they intend to icwer the petitianer in the estimation of other-st Such a situation crises when the imputations are made public. Otherwise the maker of the imputations without publicetion would not be liable under this Section. In the case in hand, the complainant has only shown his apprehension that the petitioner is contacting the Press Reporters for publication of the news item against him in the newspaper to defame him and as a result of which all his’well wishers put queries to him. Merely on the basis of apprehension of the compiainant it cannot be antioipated that the publication would be made and thereby the defamation of the complainant is being done. 13‘ This Cour? is of The considered opinian that i? i$ a fi? case for- quashing the order 9f issuance of pracess and The proceedings itseif. The criminal praceedings in reepeet @f complain? case No.375/2006 and the order da’red 21.4.2006 (Annexur'e-A-5) is quashed. M ‘ , Si!!— Pritinker Diwaker Judge 1‘ llL i 14. Pefiiion is thus allowed.