This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed assailing the validity of the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1182/ix of 2008 (Dr. Ram Kishore Shukla Vs. Jageshwar Prasad and others) under Section 500 IPC, P.S. Karwi, District Chitrakoot and seeks quashing of summoning order dated 28.6.2008 and also the order dated 24.1.2009 whereby prayer to discharge the accused under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C. was refused.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State. Records have also been perused.
It appears that a complaint alleging defamation under Section 500 IPC was brought by opposite party No.2 against certain persons including applicant No.1 and 2 also. Applicant No.1, namely, Jageshwar Prasad Misra is said to be the brother-in-law of the opposite party no.2 and applicant No.2, namely, Krishna Dutt Pandey is said to be the manager of the college. Perusal of the complaint reveals that complainant has made serveral allegations against the applicant No.1 which included the allegation that as applicant no.1 was attached in the same institution and the complainant was a lecturer in the college, he used to give his signature on the blank letter pad to him so that the same may be used in the interest of the institution. But Applicant-accused kept the same papers with him and then at some stage making ill use of same papers he got a forged receipt fabricated indicating that some goold coins as well as Rs. 1,50,000/- were given by the applicant to complainant. Other allegations in the complaint indicate the circumstances as to why and how the two relatives fell apart and their relations got estranged with each other. It was also alleged that by using certain papers and the complainants signature he also got the institution registered and renewed from the office of the Assistant Registrars Firms, Societies and Chits. It was also alleged that applicant no.2 also in the capacity of the alleged manager conveyed to the office of the assistant registrar certain facts which were false. Further allegation is that a news with regard to the aforesaid borrowing of money and gold coins was also published in a newspaper and a news to the same effect was also disclosed in a news-channel while the applicant No.1 gave an interview to the same. The grievance of the complainant is that the aforesaid publication has brought down his prestige in the estimate of his friends and people and has defamed him in eyes of society.
The central hub of the contention raised on behalf of the applicant is that the alleged receipt showing the fact of the taking of the money or the gold coins contains the signature of the complainant and the entire story given out in the complaint that at some point of time the signatures were given on blank papers is a concocted defence of the complainant to gobble up the money. It is further contended that the applicant had moved an application before the Superintendent of Police, Chitrakoot and had informed him about the entire facts which disclosed commission of several cognizable offences against complainant and danger to his life was also expressed. It has also been submitted that the application moved on behalf of the applicant no.2 was also to proper authority as all the disputes regarding the registration of the institution and the circumstances which had given rise to the dispute was the most relevant aspect with which the concerned authority had to be apprised with. The submission is that a bare reading of Section 499 IPC would reveal that the matter against the applicants is squarely covered under 8th exception. The argument is that it was very much within the rights of the applicants to express their grievance to the lawful authorities and pray suitable action to be taken against the complainant who was not only guilty of cheating or misappropriation of the money but was also giving threats to his life. The attention of the court has also been drawn to the Annexure-10 which is an application moved before the Superintendent of Police.
According to the counsel if the same fact was published in the newspaper or if the newspaper people were, on inquiry, informed about the same fact, it does not constitute any offence.
It has also been submitted that as the allegations made in the complaint did not disclose any offence against the applicants, in the light of the defenition of the offence as provided under the Indian Penal Code, the lower court on application moved on behalf of the applicants ought to have discharged or dropped proceedings against the accused.
In rebuttal, the counsel for the respondent has submitted that as complainant and applicant No.1 were close relatives and were working in the same institute, it was not very unnatural if at some stage the complainant gave his signatures in good faith to him on blank papers. But the applicant has abused the trust which was put upon him and has indulged in activities which resulted in his defamation and loss of prestige which was suffered by the complainant. It has also been submitted that as on the application moved on behalf of the applicant, no further action was taken by the police and, therefore, the case of the applicant will not be covered under the exception.
I cogitated upon the rival submissions made at the bar and had also the occasion to peruse the record including the impugned order.
At the very outset it may be relevant to extract exception No.8 of Section 499 IPC:
"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."
The most relevant aspect of the matter is that the signature on the receipt are not alleged to be forged signatures and it seems that the genuineness of the signature is an admitted fact to the complainant. Whether the signatures were given on blank papers in good faith or whether the allegations as have been made by the applicant regarding the borrowing of money etc. is true could only be decided through a proper investigation or through a proper trial. It cannot be ruled out at this stage that the allegation of complainant that he had given his signatures on blank papers may be simply a defence plea which may not be true. If the applicant had some grievance, and he had many, he did not commit anything wrong by moving an application before the superintendent of police who was very much the relevant authority to look into the matter and get it investigated after getting the information registered. The complaint was not given to an irrelevant authority who is unconcerned or unconnected with the issues involved. Innumberable complaints are made before the police or before the court and several of them may remain unproved also but that does not necessarily mean that all such informations whether given to the police or to the Court should also give rise to defamation proceedings. Much less so when the matter remained uninvestigated by the apparent lackadaisical attitude of the authorities. There may be cases where the complaint may prove to be false and the fact of innocence of the accused may get proved through a proper trial. In such cases there are sufficient powers with the authorities concerned to take action against the complainant who had misaventured to furnish false information to them. Even the accused in a given case after allegations made against him get disproved may bring a complaint of defamation at a later stage. But it shall be not only pre mature but also against the basic norms of administration of justice, to allow the defamation proceedings to go on or be initiated at the penultimate stage of either investigation or that of a trial. It was because of the same reason that the legislation in its wisdom has enacted several exceptions to Section 499 IPC and exception 8 to the same carves out a situation to cover matters like the one at hand exactly.
In the aforesaid circumstances and in the light of the analysis of the facts and law on the subject, this Court is of the view that the applicant's matter is covered within the exception 8th of Section 499 IPC and continuance of the impugned proceedings is nothing except an abuse of the court's process which cannot be allowed or countenanced with at this stage.
The application is allowed.
The impugned proceedings in the aforesaid case including the impugned order of summoning dated 28.6.2008 is quashed hereby. As a consequent of the same, the order dated 24.1.2009 too is set aside.
Order Date :- 9.4.2014 MT**