Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 445 (MP)

Mukesh Indoriya v. State of M. P.

2017-04-03

J.K.MAHESHWARI

body2017
ORDER 1. This petition under section 482 of the CrPC has been filed by the applicant against the order of taking cognizance in Criminal Case No.1199/2014 (Abdul Rauf Khan v. Dr. Mukesh Indoriya) and also for quashment of the complaint filed by the complainant. 2. In the private complaint, it is said that in the notice as well as in various communications received by the reputed persons of the city, the allegations have been levelled against complainant regarding demand of bribe for advertisement in the S.R.Cable. On refusal thereof, in an accidental case entering in the Hospital videography of the primary treatment to injured including the wife of the staff present giving primary aid, was done. The applicant gave the notice of such incident and circulated to other citizens, however it is alleged to cause loss of reputation to defame him. On the said complaint, cognizance has been taken by the Court. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contends that in view of the judgment of Sewakram Sobhani v. R.K. Karanjia, Chief Editor, Weekly Blitz and others, reported in (1981)3 SCC 208 , at this stage interference under section 482 of the CrPC is not warranted, however, all these allegations and counter allegations are required to be examined by the Court after adducing evidence brought on record. 4. On the other hand, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant contends that looking to the notice served by him through an advocate on 11.10.2012, the entire narration of the facts have been mentioned, which took place on 13.8.2012 two days prior to the Independence Day when the applicant refused to give donation/charges for advertisement. Pretending the same, complainant, who is a correspondent of a local Channel visited in the Hospital on 29.9.2012 without having any authority with a biased intention with intent to retaliate to. After service of notice, reply was given by the complainant. The applicant communicated all the incidents to the authorities and reputed persons with intent to take protection from blackmailing from the complainant, however, all these allegations would come within the purview of exceptions 8 and 9 of section 499 of the IPC, therefore, it cannot be termed as defamation of respondent No.2. The applicant communicated all the incidents to the authorities and reputed persons with intent to take protection from blackmailing from the complainant, however, all these allegations would come within the purview of exceptions 8 and 9 of section 499 of the IPC, therefore, it cannot be termed as defamation of respondent No.2. In that view of the matter, it is urged, complaint filed by the complainant and order taking cognizance by the Court are not in accordance with section 499 of the IPC may be quashed. The trial Court has not considered the aforesaid aspect while taking cognizance and passing the order. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, first of all the provisions of section 499 exceptions 8 and 9 of the IPC are required to be considered, therefore, they are reproduced thus :- 499. Defamation.- Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person. 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. Ninth Exception.- Imputation made in good faith by person for protection of his or other's interest.- It is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another provided that the imputation be made in good faith for the protection of the interests of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good. 6. On perusal thereof, it is apparent that whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases referred therein, to defame that person. Exceptions 8 and 9 indicate that any accusation made in good faith against any person to any of the person who has lawful authority over that person with respect to subject matter of the accusation by a person for protection of his or other's interests. 7. In the facts of the present case, in my considered opinion, Exception 9 of section 499 of the IPC attracts whereby it is clear that imputation on the character of another is made in good faith for protection of the interest of the person making it would not be defamation. In the present case it is not in dispute that complainant is the Correspondent/Incharge of S.R.Cables. The allegation of demand of amount for advertisement prior to Independence Day was made from the Hospital run by the present applicant. On refusal, in retaliation, the complainant decided to take revenge and picked the instance while giving primary aid to the person who met with an accident and his videography was done entering into the premises of the Hospital without any authority. However, notice was given through an advocate, which was replied by them. In the said notice, all the factual aspects have been asserted regarding demand or otherwise However, applicant circulated the said fact to the higher authorities and reputed persons with intent to save him. In such circumstances, it cannot be perceived that the said act of the applicant would amounting to defamation against the person or complainant. 8. In that view of the matter, once the allegations do not cover up the commission of offence and fall within the exception, taking of cognizance by the trial Court is unsustainable and the complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be quashed exercising the power under section 482 of the CrPC. 9. In view of the foregoing, this petition is hereby allowed. Order taking cognizance and complaint filed by the complainant is hereby set aside. The trial Court shall consign the said complaint in the record by passing appropriate order.