Case: Shatrughna Prasad Sinha Vs. Rajbhau Surajmal Rathi &amp; Others

The facts relevant for the purpose of this case and we proceed on the basis thereof are that allegations were made in the complaint filed by the respondents in the Courts of Magistrate at Pune and Nasik; we deal with those allegations as they constitute offence for which the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, could take cognizance. In paragraph 2 it is narrated that the complainant-respondent was a social activist belonging to the Marwari community, and that the respondent-second accused respectively is the editor and publisher of Stardust, Film Magazine. An interview she had with the appellant in June 1989 came to be published at page 82 of that magazine. During the course of the interview, the appellant was alleged to have made statements outraging the religious feeling of the Marwari community and also defamed the members of Marwari community as a class. In the complaint filed at Pune, what he has stated is as under"The complainant submits that in June 1989 Accused 1 has with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of Marwari community made the said statement. By the statement of Accused 1, the structure of national integrity is being paralysed. The feelings of Marwari community also were being hurt by the statement made by Accused 1. The statement of Accused 1 goes to show that Marwari community is not a class belonging to India and they have no faith and love towards India, their motherland. It is implied from the said statement that Marwaris are traitors and enemies of India. So also Accused 2 has printed and published the said statement in Stardust Magazine of 1989 with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of Marwari community." *4. The rest of the paragraphs are only the consequential narration of the allegations in paragraph 3. According to the respondents, these allegations constitute offence punishable under Section 295-A and Section 500 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC, for short). The Magistrate had taken cognizance and issued notice to the appellant for appearance. When it was challenged in the writ petition, the learned Single Judge of the High Court had held that on a reading of the complaint as a whole, no offence under Section 295-A could be made out; however, the allegations constitute prima facie offence triable by the Magistrate under Section 500IPC. Thus, these appeals by special leave

Reasoning: 8. It would thus be seen that when a private complaint is made to the Magistrate, before the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence on the complaint so as to take the other steps, the complaint shall contain all the necessary facts constituting the offence for which the complaint was laid, so that the Magistrate can proceed further in taking further steps after cognizance of the offence is taken by issuing the process etc. It is seen from a reading of para 3 of the complaint, which is the foundation to taking cognizance of the offence, that the complainant-respondent has concentrated mainly on the offence punishable under Section 295-A ofIPC; the High Court had quashed the said complaint and no appeal has been filed in this Court12. A reading of the complaint does not contain any of the allegations constituting the offence of defamation punishable under Section 500IPC. The contents of the magazine are alleged to be defamatory against the Marwari community, lowering them in the estimate of the public or their reputation is lowered in the society. But we do not find any allegation made in the complaint. Accordingly, we hold that the complaint filed in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class in Court No. 4 at Pune does not contain any of the allegations so as to constitute the offence of defamation defined in Section 499 and punishable under Section 500. Consequently, the Magistrate was not justified in issuing the process against the appellant. The complaint is accordingly quashed13. 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 stage, 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 499IPC 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