Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 218 (GUJ)

JINABHAI CHHIBHABHAI PATEL v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2013-04-18

R.D.KOTHARI

body2013
JUDGMENT R.D. KOTHARI, J. 1. Page 1 of 8, Respondent No.2 here in original complainant, has filed complaint before the learned J.M.F.C. Baroda, against his father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, in all, 9 of his near relatives, for defamation. The complaint was registered as Criminal Case No. 4203/2008. It is the contention of the complainant that the father-in-law of the complainant by writing a letter dated 28.12.2005 and showing the contents of the said letter to near relatives has defamed the complainant. It appears that the learned Magistrate, after recording verification, has sent the complaint to the concerned police station for inquiry. In the present application, the applicants have prayed to quash the complaint. 2. Heard learned advocate Mr. P.B.Shah for the applicants, learned advocate Mr. Amrish Pandya for respondent No.2 and learned A.P.P. Mr. N.J.Shah for respondent No.1 State. 3. Learned advocate Mr.Shah for the applicants submitted that the complainant has filed the complaint after two years of writing of the letter by the father-in-law. It was submitted by Mr. Shah that on the ground of delay in filing the complaint itself the complaint should be quashed. It was further submitted that, while only father-in-law has written the letter to the complainant, yet the complainant has roped in all 9 near relatives as accused unnecessarily. Mr. Shah also drew attention of the Court to Eighth Exception of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Amrish Pandya for respondent No.2 on the other hand submitted that the letters in question were shown to all near relatives and that is how the complainant is defamed. Apart from the letter dated 28.12.2005, Mr. Pandya drew attention of the Court to other letters also purported to have been written by the wife to her husband (i.e. complainant). Mr. Pandya also drew attention of the Court to the notice issued by the complainant through advocate prior to filing of the complaint. It was submitted by Mr. Pandya that the applicants have not replied to the notice and the said conduct of the applicants ought to be bore in mind while appreciating the case of the applicants. It was submitted that at this stage of the case this Court should not interfere in criminal proceedings initiated by the complainant. 5. The letter dated 28.12.2005 is produced at Annexure-B to the petition. It was submitted that at this stage of the case this Court should not interfere in criminal proceedings initiated by the complainant. 5. The letter dated 28.12.2005 is produced at Annexure-B to the petition. Reading the letter as a whole, it is not possible to say that in any way writer of the letter intends to defame the person to whom the letter is addressed. It is true that in the letter, the father-in-law has made reference to differences and disputes that took place between the complainant and his wife. The father-in-law has also stated in the letter that he has heard that the complainant wants to kill his wife. After saying so, the father-in-law requests the complainant not to play with the life of his daughter. 6. Presence of twin ingredients for offence of defamation, inter alia, is essential. They are imputation and reputation. Reputation is relative term in many respects. Confining the reference to the present provision, it can be said that what others think about onself is in general reputation. It is not clear whether mens rea is an essential ingredient or not. Otherwise also, mens rea is present or not can be satisfactorily answered only at the stage of trial. About imputation, it can be said that malignant statement may attract the provision. Beside use of words, statements, its context and situation, largely decides culpability. In the present case, in the complaint, assertion is made that the father-in-law has shown the letter in question to the mother of the complainant and he has also told about the letter to the brother of the complainant. Assuming for a moment that the father-in-law has acted in a manner as alleged by the complainant, even then to read the intention to defame is uncalled for in the circumstances of the case. In matrimonial life, in case of differences between the husband and wife, if near relatives or elders of the either side shows some indulgence, then idea and intention would be to see that differences or disputes between the husband and wife are narrowed down and ended. Even “outsider” or third party would, generally speaking, intervene only to see that the differences between husband and wife may not remain. It is permissible and reasonable to presume that intention of father-in-law would be to solve the issue instead of creating new one. Even “outsider” or third party would, generally speaking, intervene only to see that the differences between husband and wife may not remain. It is permissible and reasonable to presume that intention of father-in-law would be to solve the issue instead of creating new one. If we peruse the letter in question, it would appear that father refers the dispute without any reference whatsoever about the alleged detail of dispute. He also makes reference to alleged wish on the part of the complainant to kill his wife. If the complainant had no such wish to kill his wife, better option for complainant was to ignore the letter. The complainant is illadvised in making it an issue. Further, the letter in question is written in request form. Its tone does not appear to be offending or malicious innuendo. 7. The complainant is serving in Indian Oil Corporation. It is alleged that his wife was dealing in Stock & Shares. Alleged loss in share dealing may have led to differences and in turn, led father-in-law to write the letter in question. As observed above, the letter dated 28.12.2005 nowhere makes any assertion that can be said to be intended to defame the complainant. The said letter is written by the father, who is concerned and somewhat disturbed by not normal matrimonial relations of his daughter with her husband – complainant. In whatever manner the letter is read, the contents thereof do not make out a case that it is written with an intention to defame the complainant and/or to harm his reputation. Assuming that the said letter was shown to the near relatives, even then it would not have any effect to harm the reputation of the complainant, because the contents of the letter are not even remotely defamatory. 7.1 Assuming that the intention of father-in-law is not as good and as pure as imputed in him by us, even then referring the matter to brothers and mother of the complainant would not attract penal provision of Section 499. 7.1 Assuming that the intention of father-in-law is not as good and as pure as imputed in him by us, even then referring the matter to brothers and mother of the complainant would not attract penal provision of Section 499. Further, it may also be stated that in case of family differences, if one of the members going astray, 7.2 The family members, except in exceptional cases, wherein contents of objected writing or speech would be clear or circumstances surrounding it would be nearly over whelming, in all other cases, family members in their dealing it is not uncommon that matter would be referred to or brought to the notice of other family members with complainant on one hand and “outside world” or society, on the other hand – would be consciously or subconsciously, act in improving or at least, “taking as it stands” reputation of the complainant, they would not in that circumstances indulge in defaming the person. 7.3 The other letter read over by the learned advocate is purported to have been written by the wife to her husband – complainant. The contents of the said letter are also innocuous. It is difficult to understand as to how and why the complainant has placed reliance on the said letter. Learned advocate for the applicants has drawn attention of the Court to Eight Exception of Section 499 IPC. Its title reads as under: “Accusation preferred in good faith to authorised person. Prima-facie it supports the say of the applicants. However, at this stage of case, it is not possible to give opinion about applicability of exception. Similarly the learned advocate for the applicant has rightly drawn attention of the Court to the fact that the complainant has filed the complaint after a lapse of two years. 8. Generally, this Court would not interfere at the stage of issuance of process in criminal case. However, this is an exceptional case. It is not possible to say that offence of defamation is committed, even prima facie, and ends of justice require interference by this Court. It would be only abuse of process of court if the proceedings are allowed to continue. 9. In view of the above discussion, the present petition succeeds. Criminal Case No. 4203/2008 pending before the learned J.M.F.C. Baroda is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute.