Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1038 (MP)

Abhay Chhajlani v. Harish Kumar Sharma

2002-11-22

S.L.KOCHAR

body2002
JUDGMENT : S.L. KOCHAR, J. 1. This petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘the Code’) has been filed by the applicant/petitioner for quashing the proceedings pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore in Criminal Case No. 798/98 (old No. 398/93). 2. Brief facts, for disposal of this petition are that Non-applicant Harish Kumar Sharma, in the capacity of Secretary, Anand Marg Dharma Pracharak Sangh, Indore filed criminal complaint on 24-6-1993 under sections 294, 500, 501, Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and other 3 persons, out of which Bansilal Sethia and Rahul Batpure have died and 4th accused Anand Khurana has not yet been served. 3. An article was published in daily newspaper “NAI DUNIYA” dated 16-6-1993 at page 5 under caption “MAOT KE PATH PAR LE JANEWALE PANTH.” At page 5 column 7 para 2 of this newspaper per se defamatory fact about Anand Marg and its Dharma Guru Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar is published. Because of this, reputation of Dharma Guru Prabhat Ranjan as well as non-applicant/complainant being follower and other followers of Anand Marg, have been lowered down in the eye of general public. Article was published with mala-fide intention to degrade and defame Anand Margees. 4. Learned trial Court issued process against the applicant and other 3 accused persons. Thereafter, applicant made his appearance on 30-7-1993 and also filed an application for his discharge because respondent/complainant was not the subject matter of the publication. The publication was a matter of public interest. He also contended that the facts alleged in the publication had not been denied in the complaint. Copy of the application is Annexure 4. The reply to this application was filed after 9 years on 25-6-2002. Learned Magistrate decided this application by order dated 29-7-2002 (Annexure 6). 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has posed singular question for deciding this petition. The complainant has not satisfied mandatory requirement of section 199(1) of the Code which reads as under: “No Court shall take Cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence. The complainant has not satisfied mandatory requirement of section 199(1) of the Code which reads as under: “No Court shall take Cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence. Provided that where such person is under the age of eighteen years, or is an idiot or a lunatic or is from sickness or infirmity unable to make a complaint, or is a woman who, according to the local customs and manners, ought not to be complied to appear in public, some other person may with the leave of the Court, make a complaint on his or her behalf.” 6. He submitted that the respondent could not be regarded as a person aggrieved. Therefore, under section 199(1) of the Code of his instance the Magistrate should have not taken cognizance on his complaint. To augment the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the following decisions: 1. Hosseinbhoy Ismailji vs. Emperor, AIR 1934 Sind. 188 2. Dhirendra Nath Sen and Another vs. Rajat Kanti Bhadra, AIR 1970 Cal. 216 3. G. Narsimhan and Others vs. T.V. Chokkappa, AIR 1972 SC 2609 4. Ganesh Nand Chela vs. Swami Divyanand, 1980 Cr. L.J. 1036 5. Ashok Mitra and Others vs. State of Bihar and Another, (2002) 111 CCR 438 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the copy of the complaint Annexure 1 and publication in daily newspaper dated 16-6-1993, this Court is of the view that the respondent/complainant cannot acquire the status as aggrieved person. In the Article under caption “MAOT KE PATH PAR LE JANEWALE PANTH” nothing is mentioned against him. General Article has been written about practice and procedure of Anand Margees and something specific has been mentioned against Dharma Guru Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. Why Dharma Guru Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar should not have filed by complaint. Merely because respondent is follower and a person canvassing of Anand Marg could not be sufficient to put him in the category of aggrieved person or the person offended by the publication. Admittedly, nothing is mentioned in the publication individually against the respondent Harishkumar Sharma. 8. Why Dharma Guru Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar should not have filed by complaint. Merely because respondent is follower and a person canvassing of Anand Marg could not be sufficient to put him in the category of aggrieved person or the person offended by the publication. Admittedly, nothing is mentioned in the publication individually against the respondent Harishkumar Sharma. 8. In the case of Hosseinbhoy Ismailji (supra) the Court has held that where the editor of a paper writes an editorial which is highly defamatory of the spiritual head of a certain community, an individual of that community is not an aggrieved person within the meaning of section 198 (under Old Code of Criminal Procedure). 9. Calcutta High Court had occasioned to consider this point and given verdict that defamation of spiritual head of a certain community, individual of community is not a person aggrieved. Therefore, cognizance of offence taken on a complaint by such individual is illegal. 10. The Supreme Court in the case of G. Narsinmha (supra) has held that imputation concerning collection of persons whereas complaint by individual member of that collection can not be considered that he was aggrieved person. In this Case Chairman of reception Committee of Dravida Khazhagam has filed complaint and the same was not considered within four corner and perview of section 198, Criminal Procedure Code (Old). 11. Delhi High Court in Ganesh Nand's case (supra) has held that complaint of defamation filed by disciple of a person against whom publication was made is not a person aggrieved. 12. In the case of Ashok Mitra (supra) Patna High Court has not considered the complaint filed by an advocate against the accused, who has published an Article making defamatory comments against lawyers as a whole. Similar factual position is available in the present case in the article published in the newspaper. General comments have been made against Anand Margees whereas the complaint has been filed by one of its workers and followers. Against him, there is absolutely nothing mentioned in the Article. Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, he cannot be considered as an aggrieved person as per requirement of section 199, Criminal Procedure Code (new Code). 13. When the complainant is not competent to file complaint in that event entertainment of his complaint by the Court of law is nothing but sheer abuse of process of Court of law. Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, he cannot be considered as an aggrieved person as per requirement of section 199, Criminal Procedure Code (new Code). 13. When the complainant is not competent to file complaint in that event entertainment of his complaint by the Court of law is nothing but sheer abuse of process of Court of law. To prevent this abuse of process of Court of law, High Court has ample powers to exercise provision under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code for quashing proceedings. 14. Resultantly, this petition is allowed. Pending proceedings in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Indore in Criminal Case No. 798/98 (Old No. 398/93) is hereby quashed.