IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc. No.M- 10067 of 2010 Date of decision: 27.7.2010 Dr.S.C.Bhatia, Professor Chemistry, University Complex, Kurukshetra. ......Petitioner Vs. Dr.S.C.Gupta, Professor of Chemistry (Retd.) ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. PRESENT: Mr.R.S.Rana, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.S.C.Gupta respondent in person. **** ORDER The present petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of Criminal Complaint (Annexure P-6) and summoning order dated 13.10.2007 (Annexure P-7) passed by JMIC, Kurukshetra as well as order dated 5.3.2010 (Annexure P-8) passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra vide which the revision filed against the summoning order has been dismissed. Notice of motion was issued in this case on 7.4.2010 and while issuing notice of motion, the following contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was noted down: “Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner being Chairman was authorized in the meeting of Staff Council held on 16.10.2006 of take appropriate decision in the interest of the department and on the basis Crl.Misc. No.M- 10067 of 2010 [2] of that decision, the comments were sent to the Vice- Chancellor on 17.10.2006 and those comments were confidential and the same were not disclosed or published at any time. The summoning order has been passed on the basis of complaint filed by the respondent. No case is made out under Section 499 IPC and moreover no finding has been given by the learned Magistrate. Even in the order passed by the Revisional Court, it has been mentioned that the evidence is to be seen during trial and there is no scope for quashing of the summoning order.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complaint filed by the respondent is not covered under the provisions of Sections 499 and 500 IPC as he took all the decision in the betterment of the Department, being Chairman, and no personal remarks were given to the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the comments given by the petitioner were confidential and were sent to the competent authority in discharge of his official duties without ill-will, bias and any mala-fide intention. The complainant-respondent while appearing in person submits that false allegations were alleged by the petitioner in the report which was sent to Vice-Chancellor on 17.10.2006 and also stated incorrect facts as is clear from the letters sought under RTI. These documents jave Crl.Misc. No.M- 10067 of 2010 [3] also been signed by many persons which shows that report was not confidential as there was nothing mentioned on the report which shows that it was confidential, even word 'confidential' has not been mentioned. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the complaint as well as summoning order passed by JMIC and the order passed in revision. Complainant-respondent filed a complaint under Sections 499 read with Section 500 IPC against the petitioner in which it was mentioned that during his service of 30 years in the University, he worked with sincerity and devotion and nothing was there against him. He was working on a project in December 2002 which was successfully completed in December 2006. The complainant was assigned teaching work in the Chemistry Department after his retirement in the year 2005-2006 and was also appointed as examiner for the purpose of practical examination in April 2006. On 10.10.2006, a project was sent to the petitioner for forwarding the same to UGC through Registrar but the same was rejected. While rejecting the project, certain comments were sent to the Vice- Chancellor. A legal notice was also served upon the petitioner but no reply was given. When nothing was done, a Criminal Complaint was filed for summoning under Section 499 /500 IPC. On the basis of complaint filed by the complainant, impugned summoning order dated 13.10.2007 was passed. Aggrieved against the order of summoning, petitioner filed criminal revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra which was also dismissed on 15.3.2010. Crl.Misc. No.M- 10067 of 2010 [4] Now the petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of the complaint as well as summoning order only on the ground that whatever has been done by the petitioner, that was done while discharging his official duties. No ill-will or personal grudge was there against the complainant and no case is made out for summoning the petitioner under Sections 499/500 IPC. As far as the contents of complaint are concerned, the same are to be read in its entirety and isolated passage cannot be read out of context. The Court is cast with a duty to decide what impression the letters would produce on the mind of an un-prejudicial reader if read in this context. The comments given by the petitioner are in context with the project and cannot be read in isolation. Section 499 IPC defines the 'Defamation', whereas Section 500 thereof proves the punishment for the offence. The same read as under: “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 person, is said, except in the case hereinafter excepted, to defame that person. Explanation1. - It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be Crl.Misc. No.M- 10067 of 2010 [5] hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near 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, or lowers the character of that person , or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful. 500. Punishment for defamation.- Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a terms which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.” The word”defamation” has not been defined in the IPC. This has derived its form from word “defame”. As per the Chambers Dictionary (Deluxe Edition), the word “defame” has the following meanings:- “to take away or destroy the good fame or reputation of; to say malicious things about; to speak evil of; to charge falsely.” While enumerating the meanings of 'defame”, the word “defamation” has been defined as “the act of defaming; calumny; slander or libel.” Crl.Misc. No.M- 10067 of 2010 [6] According to Lord Atkin, to ascertain whether a defamation has been made, the test for that is to see “ whether the words tend to lower the complainant in estimation of the right thinking members of the society generally.” The essence of the offence of defamation as given in Section 499 of the IPC is that the imputation must have been made either with the intention of causing harm or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation would cause harm to a person. For constituting an offence of defamation under Section 499 PC, three essential ingredients are required to be fulfilled:- i) Making or publishing any imputation concerning any person; ii)Such imputation must have been made by words either spoken or intended to be read or by signs or by visible representations; and iii)The said imputation must have been made with the intention to harm or with knowledge or having reason to believe that it will harm the reputation of the person concerned.” Thus, it is clear that intention to cause harm is the most essential sine qua non for an offence under Section 499 IPC. An offence punishable under Section 500 IPC requires blameworthy mind and is not a Crl.Misc. No.M- 10067 of 2010 [7] statutory offence requiring no mens rea. If any imputation made is with a motive or mala fide intention to lower the reputation or is made in good faith is to be determined from the facts and circumstances of the case. Undisputedly, the requirement of good faith and public good, both are to be satisfied and the failure to prove good faith would exclude the exception in favour of the accused even if the requirement of public good is satisfied. In the present case, the allegations mentioned in the complaint do not attract the provisions of Section 499 IPC. The complaint is with regard to refusal of project and the decision taken therein in the meeting of Staff Council which was between the members of the Staff Council of the Vice-Chancellor. Moreover, the said communication was never made public at any stage as it was neither published on any notice board nor it was made public by any means. So, the intention of the petitioner was nowhere to cause harm in any manner or to defame the respondent. Whatever has been stated in the report was the assessment of the petitioner made on the project report. The opinion given by the petitioner was confidential and the same was sent to the competent authority in discharge of his official duties without any ill-will, bias, mala fide intention and no inference in any manner can be taken. Otherwise also the petitioner never spoke or publish any imputation concerning the respondent intending to harm as not even a single word was said anywhere with regard to confidential report. Even the respondent himself collected the information under the Right to Information Act, otherwise he was not in a positon to get information in any manner. Crl.Misc. No.M- 10067 of 2010 [8] The petitioner being a Chairman of the Chemistry Department took appropriate action in the interest of the department and proceedings of the Staff Council were sent to the Vice Chancellor and accordingly action was taken which was approved by the Vice-Chancellor. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Ch.Bhajan Lal and others 1991(1) RCR (Criminal) 383 considered in detail the ambit and scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. and power of the High Court to quash the investigation/FIR/ complaints. It laid down 7 categories/circumstances in which such a power could be exercised. The present case would clearly fall in categories 1 and 4 enumerated therein which were described as under: 1) “where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.” 3) “Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR/ complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence or make out a case against the accused.” I am of the view that there is nothing on record either in the complaint or in the evidence which could establish that the ingredients of Section 499 of the IPC have been fulfilled to attract criminal proceedings against the petitioner or that the imputation so made in the Staff Council Crl.Misc. No.M- 10067 of 2010 [9] meeting is either untrue or defamatory. The trial Court before issuing the process has to satisfy himself after reading the complaint and the preliminary evidence adduced before it, that the commission of an offence has indeed been made out and what was the intention of the petitioner in issuing confidential letters to the Staff Council in performance of his official duties. For the reasons recorded above, the petition is allowed. Complaint No. 300 of 2008 dated 24.3.3007 (Annexure P-6), summoning order dated 13.10.2007 (Annexure P-7) passed by JMIC, Kurukshetra and order dated 5.3.2010 (Annexure P-8) passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra are set aside. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE Dated: 27.7.2010 raghav