KISHORE BALKRISHNA NAND versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
[2023] 11 S.C.R. 34, Supreme Court of India, 2023
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Issues
[2023] 11 S.C.R. 34 : 2023 INSC 675 
34
CASE DETAILS
KISHORE BALKRISHNA NAND
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 2291 of 2011)
AUGUST 02, 2023
[J. B. PARDIWALA AND MANOJ MISRA, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration : Whether the allegations made in the 
complaint in the good faith addressed to the lawful authority-Sub Divisional 
Magistrate, make out an oﬀ ence of defamation under Section 500 IPC or not.
Penal Code, 1860 – s.499, eighth exception, s. 500 – Accusation 
preferred in good faith – When not defamation:
Held : Accusation in the complaint preferred in good faith against 
any person, to a person in lawful authority with regard to the subject-matter 
of accusation, is not a defamation – By perusing the allegations made in the 
complaint, no case for defamation made out – Impugned order passed by 
the High Court set aside – Original order passed by the Magistrate issuing 
summons, quashed and set aside. [Paras 16 and 17]
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
2291 of 2011.
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.02.2010 of the High Court 
of Bombay at Nagpur in CRLWP No. 676 of 2009.
Appearances:
Satyajit A Desai, Anshuman Ashok, Siddharth Gautam, Abhinav K. 
Mutyalwar, Gajanan N Tirthkar, Vijay Raj Singh Chouhan, Ms. Anagha S. 
Desai, Advs. for the Appellant.
35
KISHORE BALKRISHNA NAND v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, 
Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Bharat Bagla, Sourav Singh, Aditya Krishna, 
Advs. for the Respondents.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
ORDER
1. The respondent No.2 (original complainant) although served with 
the notice issued by this Court, yet has chosen not to remain present before 
this Court, either in-person or through an advocate, and oppose this appeal.
2. This is an appeal at the instance of the original accused summoned 
for the oﬀ ence of defamation punishable under Section 500 of the Indian 
Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”) and is directed against the order passed by 
the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, dated 03.02.2010 in 
Criminal Writ Petition No.676 of 2009, by which the High Court rejected the 
writ petition ﬁ led by the appellant – Kishore Balkrishna Nand and thereby 
declined to quash the order of issue of process by the Magistrate for the 
oﬀ ence of defamation.
3. It appears from the materials on record that the appellant herein 
lodged a complaint in writing addressed to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate 
(for short, “the SDM”) stating that the respondent no.2 herein (original 
complainant) had put up a shop by encroaching upon some land.   In the 
complaint. the appellant is said to have further stated that such shop put up 
by the complainant was creating nuisance, as many anti-social elements 
and road romeos had
started visiting the said shop and were creating all 
sorts of problems.
4. The SDM upon receipt of the complaint dated 25.01.2002 ﬁ led 
by the appellant issued notice to the complainant. While the proceedings 
before the SDM were pending, the complainant thought ﬁ t to lodge a private 
complaint in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Worora, Chandrapur, State 
of Maharashtra for the oﬀ ence of defamation. The learned Magistrate took 
cognizance on the said complaint and issued process. The cognizance for 
the oﬀ ence of defamation was taken by the Magistrate on the basis of the 
averments said to have been made by the appellant in his written complaint 
addressed to the SDM, referred to above.
36
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 11 S.C.R.
5. As the record reveals, the appellant thereafter moved an application 
before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate with a prayer that the order of 
issue of process be recalled. The Magistrate concerned recalled the order. The 
complainant being aggrieved by such order of recall passed by the Magistrate, 
challenged the same before the Sessions Court by ﬁ ling a revision application. 
The revision application was allowed and the order recalling the order of issue 
of process was quashed. In such circumstances, the appellant went before the 
High Court. In the High Court, the appellant thought ﬁ t not to press his petition 
and withdrew the same.
6. Eight years thereafter the appellant thought ﬁ t to challenge the original 
order of issue of process before the High Court. The High Court without entering 
into the merits of the matter, declined to entertain such petition only on the 
ground of delay.
7. In such circumstances referred to above, the appellant is here before 
this Court with the present appeal.
8. Mr. Anshuman Ashok, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant 
vehemently submitted that the learned Magistrate committed a serious error in 
taking cognizance on a complaint, which fails to disclose commission of any 
oﬀ ence. According to him even if the entire case, as put up by the complainant, is 
accepted or believed to be true, none of the ingredients to constitute the oﬀ ence 
of defamation as deﬁ ned under
Section 499 of the IPC and made punishable 
under Section 500 of the IPC are disclosed. He pointed out that his client 
(appellant), in good faith, brought to the notice of the SDM that the complainant 
had encroached upon some portion of the land and had put up a shop which was 
creating nuisance. This, according to the learned counsel, would not constitute 
any oﬀ ence of defamation. He submitted that even otherwise since the alleged 
defamatory words or statements are said to have been made in a complaint made 
in writing addressed to a public authority like SDM and not made public, the 
same would not attract the rigours of Section 499 of  the IPC.
9. In such circumstances as above, the learned counsel prayed that there 
being merit in his appeal, the same be allowed and the criminal proceedings 
be quashed.
10. We also heard Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, the learned counsel 
appearing for the State. However, this is a case of a private complaint. The
37
State has hardly any role to play. Still learned the counsel assisted us on the 
question of law.
ANALYSIS:
11. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties 
and having gone through the materials on record, the only question 
that falls for our consideration is whether the allegations made in the 
complaint addressed to the SDM make out the offence under Section 
500 IPC or not?
12. Section 499 of the IPC reads, thus:
“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 cases hereinafter 
excepted, to defame that person.”
13. Eighth Exception to Section 499, to which reliance has been 
placed by the learned counsel, reads as under:
“Eighth Exception.—Accusation preferred in good faith to 
authorised person.—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 respect to the subject-matter of accusation.”
14. The word “good faith” has been defined in Section 52 of the 
IPC to mean:
“52. ‘Good faith’.—Nothing is said to be done or believed in 
‘good faith’ which is done or believed without due care and attention.”
15. We are of the view that no case is made out to put the 
appellant to trial for the alleged
offence. There is no defamation as such.
16. 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 authority over that person with regard 
to the subject-matter of accusation. Even otherwise by perusing the 
KISHORE BALKRISHNA NAND v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

38
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 11 S.C.R.
allegations made in the complaint, we are satisfied that no case for 
defamation has been made out.
17. In the overall view of the matter, we are convinced that the appeal 
deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The impugned order passed 
by the High Court is hereby set aside. As a consequence of the same, the 
original order passed by the Magistrate issuing summons, is also hereby 
quashed and set aside. The criminal proceedings in the form of Criminal 
Case No.247 of 2002 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, 
Worora, Chandrapur, Maharashtra stand terminated.
18. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
Headnotes prepared by:

Appeal allowed.
Nidhi Jain