Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 856 (BOM)

Chandrashekhar Kulkarni v. Siddharth Ambaji Patil

2012-04-24

R.C.CHAVAN

body2012
Judgment This application by Reporter, Editor and Publisher of a newspaper published from Mumbai, seeks quashing of order 30th October, 1999, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pen, District: Raigad, in Criminal Case No.77 of 1999, issuing process against the applicants. 2. Facts which are material for deciding this application are as under: Respondent No.1 was Associate Professor at M.G.M. Medical College, Navi Mumbai. There was some complaint against respondent No.1 about respondent No.1 having taken a revenge of a female student taking tuition from him, because she did not respond to his indecent advances. She made a complaint in this regard. The University appointed a committee to enquire into the allegations made against the respondent No.1. After considering the report of the committee, the Board of Examinations of University decided to debar respondent No.1 from being an Examiner. The detailed report about this was published by applicant No.1 Chandrashekhar Kulkarni the reporter in the newspaper, of which applicant No.2 Dr.Arun Tikekar was the editor; and it was published by applicant No.3 Shri. V. Rangnathan the publisher of applicant No.4 newspaper agency. 3. Respondent No.1 filed complaint before the learned Magistrate at Pen against the Vice Chancellor, members of the enquiry committee, the Board of Examinations, female student concerned and the four applicants, for offences punishable under Sections 500, 501, 502, 504, 120B, 465, 469, 109 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate examined complainant-respondent No.1 and after hearing the complainant refused to issue process against accused No.1 the Vice Chancellor, but directed issuance of process against the other accused persons including present applicants, by order dated 30th October, 1999. Aggrieved thereby the applicants are before this Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for respondent No.1 original complainant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted at the outset that the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code is restricted and the grounds on which this power can be exercised has been spelt out in several judgments of the Supreme Court. He submitted that case at hand does not present the situation where invocation of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is justified. He submitted that case at hand does not present the situation where invocation of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is justified. He relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Prakash P. Hinduja and another, reported in (2003) 6 Supreme Court Cases 195. In para 9 of the judgment the Supreme Court had observed as under:- "The matter was examined in considerable detail in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and after review of practically all the earlier decisions, the Court in para 108 of the Report laid down the grounds on which power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to quash the criminal proceedings and basically they are (1) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, (2) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused, (3) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Act concerned to the institution and continuance of the proceedings. But this power has to be exercised in a rare case and with great circumspection." 6. In Kurukshetra University -vs-State of Haryana, reported in AIR 1977 Supreme Court 2229 on which learned counsel for respondent No.1 placed reliance, the Supreme Court again held that the powers under Section 482 of the Code have to be exercised sparingly with the circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 further submitted that in case of defamation the defence of bonafide publication in good faith has to be proved by the accused and therefore, there should be no question of quashing the proceeding at the threshold. 8. Learned counsel for the applicants on the other hand submitted that in the present case, the applicants have not imputed anything to the complainant which was not already there in the report of the committee appointed to enquire into the allegations against the complainant. 8. Learned counsel for the applicants on the other hand submitted that in the present case, the applicants have not imputed anything to the complainant which was not already there in the report of the committee appointed to enquire into the allegations against the complainant. Learned counsel, submitted that the press report which was published by the applicants was accurate report about the proceedings in the University against the complainant and therefore, such publication cannot amount to defamation. For this purpose, he relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in Jawaharlal Darda and ors. vs. Manoharrao Ganpatrao Kapsikar and another, reported in AIR 1998 Supreme Court 2117. There too the issuance of process had been questioned by the accused before High Court by filing petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after failing in the Court of Sessions. The Court observed that what had been published by the accused in the newspaper was accurate, true report of the proceedings of the Assembly and that the involvement of the complainant was disclosed by the preliminary enquiry made by the Government itself and that if the accused, bonafide believing the version of the Minister to be true, published the report in good faith, it could not be said that they intended to harm the reputation of the complainant. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the publication by the present applicants cannot amount to defamation. 9. I have gone through the publication in the newspaper as also the order passed by the Board of Examinations debarring the complainant permanently from examination work. It mentions that the Board of Examination had accepted the report of the Committee appointed by the Vice Chancellor. Learned counsel made available for my perusal the copy of the report itself on the basis of which news item was drafted. The Committee had summed up that the appointment of Dr. Siddarth Patil had not been made by any official of the University or Dean of the College on the examination held at M.G.M. College and still Dr. Patil had worked as Examiner there rather than going to R.G.M. College, Thane as Examiner. Dr. Patil, for the reasons not known, wandered in the campus of M.G.M. college. He had without any authority introduced himself to the convener as the fourth examiner and continued to work as examiner for all remaining days without any official documents. Patil had worked as Examiner there rather than going to R.G.M. College, Thane as Examiner. Dr. Patil, for the reasons not known, wandered in the campus of M.G.M. college. He had without any authority introduced himself to the convener as the fourth examiner and continued to work as examiner for all remaining days without any official documents. Thus, it is clear that the report published, which recounts the allegations made by complainant's student Tanaj and the action taken by the university authorities cannot be said to amount defamation. 10. In view of this, in so far as the present applicants i.e. the Reporter, Editor, Publisher of the newspaper are concerned, they must be held to have acted bonafide in accurately and truthfully reporting the proceedings in respect of conduct of the complainant in good faith. Thus, the publication of news item does not amount to defamation. The application is, therefore, allowed. The order dated 30.10.1999, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pen, District Raigad in Criminal Case No.77 of 1999, issuing process as against the applicants is quashed and set aside.