Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1162 (RAJ)

R. K. Nair v. State of Rajasthan

2012-05-08

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 4.1.2006 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur in Criminal Case No. 16/2006, whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioners for the offence under Section 500 Indian Penal Code as affirmed in revision by the order dated 8.5.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Jodhpur in Criminal Revision No. 87/2008. 2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent No. 2 filed a. complaint in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur alleging inter alia that he, along with certain other residents of Kerala State, formed a registered association namely Ayppa Charitable Society with the objective of granting educational, medical and other assistance to the poor and needy people. It was alleged that the Ayppa Seva Sangam is another society which is not related to the above-mentioned Ayppa Charitable Society in any manner. It was also mentioned that the aims and objectives of the Ayppa Charitable Society and the Ayppa Sewa Sang are entirely 'different. The complainant further submitted that on 5.11.2003, the petitioner No. 1 R.K. Nair, who is the Secretary of Ayppa Seva Sangam, published a notice in the newspaper, which, as per the complainant, was defamatory and resulted into the lowering of the complainant's reputation in the society. The complainant also alleged that due to the publication in the newspaper, the reputation of the complainant in the society was badly affected and damaged. 3. The complainant examined himself as also three witnesses in support of his complaint. The defamatory publication said to have been made at the instance of the petitioners was exhibited. The legal notice issued on behalf of the complainant and the reply thereto were has also placed on record in support of the complaint. In the reply it was specifically stated that there was no intention of the petitioners to defame the complainant. It was stated that complainant's name was not mentioned in the public notice and that the notice was only to warn the people that the petitioners' society and the other society, namely Ayppa Charitable Society are different organisation and that nobody should keep or establish relations with Ayppa Charitable Society under the impression that the said society is connected with the Ayppa Temple, Ratartada, Jodhpur. 4. 4. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate proceeded to summon the petitioners for the offence under Section 500 Indian Penal Code by the impugned order dated 4.1.2006. The petitioners challenged the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by filing a revision petition, which too has been rejected, as stated above. Thus, the instant miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of the impugned orders and the proceedings of the complaint as a whole. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that ex facie the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute the necessary ingredients of the offence under Section 500 Indian Penal Code It is submitted that even if the public notice is considered as a whole then too, the contents thereof are not defamatory on the face value. It is also submitted that the complainant is not named in the public notice and that none of the allegations made in the public notice can be construed to be defaming him. He, therefore, submits that the impugned orders deserve to be quashed. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No. 2 submits that by the act of the petitioners in having the public notice published in the newspaper, the reputation of the complainant was harmed and his image in the opinion of the public at large was tarnished and therefore, the learned trial Judge rightly took cognizance and summoned the petitioners for the offence under Section 500 I.P.C. 7. Having considered the arguments advanced at the bar and upon going through the material available on record, it is manifest that the public notice, which has been made the basis of the complaint, does not disclose that the same was aimed to malign or defame any person. No such fact is mentioned in the public notice, by which it can be gathered that it was aimed to defame or malign the complainant-respondent being the Secretary of the Ayppa Charitable Society. All that has been mentioned in the public notice is that the names of the two organizations are deceptively similar and that any body, who was desirous to have a relationship with Ayappa Temple should not for that end interact with the Ayppa Charitable Society. In the opinion of this Court, there is no such language in this public notice, which can be construed to be defamatory in nature. In the opinion of this Court, there is no such language in this public notice, which can be construed to be defamatory in nature. The fact is that the names of the two organizations are similar and if the petitioners, with the objective of protecting the rights of their organizations, tried to convey to- the public at large that the societies are distinct and that the petitioners' society was patronising the Ayppa Temple, then such an act cannot be said to be aimed at defaming or maligning the complainant. 8. In the opinion of this Court, the admitted allegations of the complainant in the complaint and in the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Criminal Procedure Code, do not disclose or constitute the essential ingredients of the offence of defamation. 9. The upshot of the above discussion is that the miscellaneous petition succeeds. The impugned order dated 4.1.2006 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur in Criminal Regular Case No. 16/2006, as also the impugned order dated 8.5.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Jodhpur in Criminal Revision No. 87/2008 affirming the order of the trial Court dated 4.1.2006, are hereby quashed. Consequently, the proceedings of the Complaint No. 16/2006 are also quashed. The stay petition also stands disposed of.Petition allowed. *******