Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 874 (MP)

Dilip Kumar Ganguli v. S. K. Mishra

2014-07-23

N.K.GUPTA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1.Heard on admission. The applicant has moved the present petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. against the order dated 16.4.2012 passed by the J.M.F.C., Jabalpur whereby the complaint filed by the applicant under Section 500 of I.P.C. was dismissed under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. He has also challenged order dated 13.12.2013 passed by the 19th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Criminal Revision No. 175 of 2012 whereby the revision filed by the applicant was dismissed. 2. Facts if the case, in short, are that the respondent has published a news against the applicant that the applicant became mad and he is a person who received his salary without doing any work. The news was defamatory and therefore, a complaint under Section 500 of I.P.C. was filed. After considering the evidence under Sections 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C the learned JMFC has dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of Cr.P.C and revision filed by the applicant was also dismissed. 3. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, it appears that news was not published by the respondent but, it was published on the basis of the application made by the applicant himself against the respondent about his corruption. When the correspondent of the concerned newspaper contacted the respondent before publication of the news then the respondent gave his explanation. Looking to the various proceedings pending against the applicant of misconduct the comments given by the respondent appears to be correct. No employee can be permitted to give a public news against his superior officer in a newspaper without any basis and if he does so then the superior officer can say that he became mad. Under such circumstances, the explanation given by the respondent is not defamatory in the eye of law. The learned JMFC has rightly dismissed the complaint filed by the applicant. 4. There is no reason so that any interference can be done in the orders passed by both the Courts below. It is not a case in which the inherent powers of this Court can be invoked. Consequently, the application filed by the applicant is hereby dismissed.