Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1714 (RAJ)

Ram Gopal Soni v. State of Rajasthan

2012-08-07

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the order dated 6.5.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Bikaner in Criminal Revision No.149/2007 whereby the revision filed by the petitioner against the order dated 21.7.2003 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Bikaner in Private Complaint Case No.65/2002 summoning the petitioner for offence under Section 500 IPC, has been rejected. 3. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent no.2 filed a complaint against the petitioner in the Court of A.C.J.M. No.2, Bikaner with the allegation that the petitioner was a highly ranked official in the Indian Forest Service. The complainant claimed that he was in State Service working as Chief Conservator of Forest in I.G.N.P., Bikaner and was having a good reputation in his department as well as the society at large. He further alleged that he managed to expose several scams which had taken place in the State Government's trade unit in connivance with the petitioner. The complainant further alleged that as a result of his acts, the petitioner started bearing ill-will towards him. It was further alleged that the accused petitioner managed to procure the post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Rajasthan, Jaipur and for the purpose of procuring the said post, the accused wrote a confidential letter to Mr.Atul Kumar Garg, Forest Secretary on 2.9.2002 in which vicious, scurrilous and defamatory allegations were levelled against the complainant. The complainant alleged that the letter was written deliberately for lowering his prestige and defaming him. It is alleged that the accused knew that the letter would pass through many hands posted in the department and by such act, the complainant would be defamed. It is further alleged that though the accused had written letter marking it to be 'confidential' and though the letter was addressed to the Forest Secretary, but on a reading the letter, the prestige of the complainant in the mind of the Forest Secretary must have been lowered. It is further alleged that though the accused had written letter marking it to be 'confidential' and though the letter was addressed to the Forest Secretary, but on a reading the letter, the prestige of the complainant in the mind of the Forest Secretary must have been lowered. It is further alleged that in pursuance to the letter written by the accused to the Forest Secretary, the Forest Secretary made an enquiry in this regard by a letter dated 5.9.2012 addressed to the Chief Controlling Officer cum Chief Conservator of Forest, Government of Rajasthan and a copy of the letter was marked to the complainant seeking his comments. The complainant further alleged that the contents of the letter came to the knowledge of the stenographer and various other employees of the department as a result whereof, the prestige and reputation of the complainant was lowered in the opinion of these persons. He further alleged that the word "???" w as deliberately used by the accused petitioner in the letter which had an import of communicating to the persons concerned that the character of the complainant was immoral and the complainant was indulged in immoral acts of going to the prostitutes, lavish spending etc. 4. Upon filing of the said complaint, the learned Magistrate directed an enquiry under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The complainant examined himself, Bahadur Singh, Bheem Singh and Mool Singh in support of the complaint. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate by the order dated 21.7.2003 proceeded to summon the petitioner for the offence under Section 500 IPC. The petitioner challenged the order dated 21.7.2003 by filing a revision and the revisional court too has dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner by its order dated 6.5.2008. Accordingly, the petitioner has preferred the instant misc. petition challenging the orders dated 21.7.2003 and 6.5.2008 and all subsequent proceedings thereupon. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the letter which was written by the petitioner was a confidential communication written to the Forest Secretary and as such, the conclusion of the trial court that the petitioner deliberately wrote the letter knowing that the same would be circulated in the department was absolutely unfounded. It is submitted that the prosecution of the petitioner is barred by Exception Eighthly to Section 499 IPC. It is submitted that the prosecution of the petitioner is barred by Exception Eighthly to Section 499 IPC. It is submitted that the accused was the complainant's senior officer and since the complainant's conduct was improper, he wrote a letter to the Forest Secretary so that appropriate action against the prejudicial acts of the complainant could be taken. What has been mentioned in the letter is that the complainant visits Udaipur and keeps the staff posted at Udaipur in his attendance. The letter also mentions that while visiting Udaipur on alleged official assignments, the complainant was actually not performing the official duty and, therefore, the workers union was intending to take drastic action in this regard. The ultimate prayer in the letter was that the administrative control of the departmental trade operations should be given to some other Section of the department. It is also submitted that the letter placed on record bears the mark 'confidential' in bold print. As such, it was absolutely unjustified and wrong for the learned courts below to have held that the petitioner intentionally wrote the letter to defame the complainant. It is, therefore, submitted that the orders impugned amount to abuse of process of court and deserve to be quashed. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner wrote the letter with scurrilous remarks against the complainant knowing fully that the forest Secretary would have the letter circulated in the department for further action and thereby the accused was well aware that the prestige of the complainant would be lowered by the circulation of the letter. It is submitted that ex-facie the use of word "???" in the letter was intended to lower and harm the reputation of the complainant in the department and thus, he urged that as the order taking cognizance has been affirmed in revision, no interference is called for in the orders impugned by way of the instant misc. petition. 7. Upon a consideration of the arguments advanced at the bar and after going through the orders impugned and the material available on the record, it is apparent that the letter which was written by the petitioner was written by him in his official capacity to his superior officer. petition. 7. Upon a consideration of the arguments advanced at the bar and after going through the orders impugned and the material available on the record, it is apparent that the letter which was written by the petitioner was written by him in his official capacity to his superior officer. The letter was more in the nature of a complaint made to the Forest Secretary in relation to the grudge of the employees against the visits of the complainant. The prayer which has been made in the complaint is that the control of the particular Section of the department should be given to some other Section so as to control unnecessary interference by the complainant. As such, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the act of the accused falls within the Exception Eighthly to Section 499 IPC, cannot be said to be without any basis. 8. Exception Eighthly to Section 499 IPC 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." 9. Obviously, the letter was written to the Forest Secretary who has an administrative control over the complainant. The letter was written with a specific prayer for taking action. As such, there is nothing in the letter which is beyond the scope of Exception Eighthly to Section 499 IPC. That apart, the letter was not meant for publication as is apparent from the mentioning of the word "confidential" on the top of the letter. 10. In view of the above discussion, it is apparent that the learned Magistrate has wrongly held that the accused wrote the letter deliberately with the intention of defaming the complainant. The case of the accused is squarely covered by the Exception Eighthly to Section 499 IPC and that apart, the letter was not meant or intended to be circulated. Resultantly, the accused cannot be held responsible for the act of defamation as alleged by the complainant in the complaint. 11. Accordingly, the instant misc. petition deserves to be accepted and is hereby allowed. Resultantly, the accused cannot be held responsible for the act of defamation as alleged by the complainant in the complaint. 11. Accordingly, the instant misc. petition deserves to be accepted and is hereby allowed. The orders dated 6.5.2008 and 21.7.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Bikaner and the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Bikaner respectively and all subsequent proceedings are hereby quashed.Stay petition also stands disposed of.Record be sent back forthwith.Petition allowed. *******