Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 412 (GAU)

Sushil Chowdhury v. Hemendra Deb Nath and Anr.

2002-09-24

B.B.DEB

body2002
B.B. DEB, J- Heard Mr A.K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr D. Sarkar, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent No. 2 and Mr R.C. Debnath, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. 2. By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has sought for quashing the entire criminal case pending against him in Case No. C.R. 201 of 2002 before the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sabroom, South Tripura. He also assailed the order of taking cognizance. 3. The facts relevant to decide the case is summarised as below: - One Shri Hemendra Debnath instituted a complaint case against the present petitioner alleging, inter alia, that the petitioner being the owner-cum-editor of 'Dainik Ganaduf, a daily local newspaper, carried/published a news item in its issue dated 19.7.2002 under the caption "Tripurar Bartaman Communist Mantri Savar Aro Ek Mantri Ebare Nari Kelenekarite Jarie Mantritwa Khoate Basechen (More one Minister of the present Communist Party of Tripura is going to lose the ministry due to involvement in woman scandal)". The news item under the aforesaid caption imputed the reputation of Shri Jitendra Chowdhury, a Minister of the State of Tripura, In-charge of the Department of I.C.A.T., Rural Development etc. In paragraph 4 of the complaint petition, it is alleged that having gone through the aforesaid news item, the complaint felt mentally hurt as the owner-cum-editor of the said local daily with ill motive defamed and malign the 'prestige and dignity' of the Minister concerned and lowered down his "prestige and position" as well as the "prestige and dignity" of the C.P.I.(M) party in the eyes of the people in general. 4. On careful perusal of the complaint petition, it appears that according to the complainant's own assessment and judgment, Minister Shri Jitendra Chowdhury has been defamed, the political party C.P.I(M) as well, but neither the person defamed, viz. Shri Jitendra Chowdhury nor the party viz. C.P.I(M) has lodged any complaint, being a supporter of the C.P.I(M) party, the complainant lodged the complaint. Shri Jitendra Chowdhury nor the party viz. C.P.I(M) has lodged any complaint, being a supporter of the C.P.I(M) party, the complainant lodged the complaint. If a Minister is defamed, touching any matter of his ministerial job, he being a public servant could take resort to the provision of Section 199 Cr.P.C. Firstly, on his behalf learned Public Prosecutor could launch a criminal case before the learned Sessions Judge and in case the public servant concerned decides to take action personally, he could do so by lodging a formal complaint as permissible under sub-section (6) of Section 199 Cr.P.C., but neither of the courses has been adopted. 5. Mr Bhowmik, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of sub-section (1) of Section 199 Cr.P.C., no Court should take cognizance of offence punishable under Chapter XXI of the I.P.C. (including the offence of defamation) except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence. According to him, in the present case, as available from the recitals of the complaint petition, it reveals that either the Hon'ble Minister Shri Jitendra Chowdhury may have been an aggrieved party or the political party viz. C.P.I(M) may have been aggrieved, but neither Shri Chowdhury nor the political party concerned made any complaint and as such the learned Magistrate should not have taken cognizance of the offence at the instance of a follower of the political party. To substantiate this point, Mr Bhowmik referred a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in G. Narasimhan and others etc. etc. appellants-Vs-T.V. Chokkappa, respondent, reported in AIR 1972 SC 2609 and submits that in an offence punishable under Sections 500/501 I.P.C., the complainant must himself to be an aggrieved party, otherwise complaint filed by any other person on behalf of the person aggrieved is not maintainable in view of Section 199(1) of the Cr.P.C. Mr Bhowmik also referred a decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Dhirendra Nath Sen and another, petitioners-Vs-Rajat Kanti Bhadra, Opp. Party, reported in AIR 1970 Calcutta 216 and submits that even being a member of a political party, the present complainant has no locus to seek for any legal action against the present petitioner in a criminal forum. 6. Party, reported in AIR 1970 Calcutta 216 and submits that even being a member of a political party, the present complainant has no locus to seek for any legal action against the present petitioner in a criminal forum. 6. On perusal of the citations, it reveals that even if a political party, here C.P.I.(M) is defamed, any member of the party cannot file a criminal case, but the party itself could maintain a criminal case. Either any person authorised by the party by a specified resolution or the chief of the party organization could launch a criminal case if the party feels aggrieved. 7. Mr Debnath, learned counsel for the complainant, respondent No. 1 herein submits that being a party man the complainant felt defamed and as such he filed the case. 8. It is alleged in the complaint petition that by publication of the offending news item, the owner-cum-editor of the aforesaid newspaper intentionally defamed the Minister Shri Jitendra Chowdhury, who is also an office bearer of the State Committee of C.P.I(M) party and as such the news item also imputed the reputation, prestige and dignity of the political party in the estimation of general public. The news item never intended to defame any supporter of the party either in general or particularly any member of it. 9. In that view the mater, the complaint petition bearing No. C.R. 201 of 2002 pending before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sabroom, South Tripura deserves to be quashed being not maintainable at the instance of a party man not defamed personally. However, it is made clear that by this order neither the aggrieved Minister concerned nor the party would be precluded to take appropriate step, if so advised, but in any event such a criminal complaint case cannot be allowed to continue at the instance of the complaint not personally defamed. 10. The petition is allowed and the aforesaid complaint case is hereby quashed. No order as to costs.