Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 607 (UTT)

Kundan Prasad Tiwari v. Bhuwan Chandra Pathak

2024-09-24

VIVEK BHARTI SHARMA

body2024
JUDGMENT : VIVEK BHARTI SHARMA, J. 1. Heard. 2. Admit. 3. The present C-482 petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the order dated 20.02.2016 passed by learned Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bageshwar in Criminal Case No. 190/2015, titled Kundan Prasad Tiwari Vs. Bhuwan Chandra Pathak and another, whereby the learned court dismissed the complaint of the petitioner filed against the respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 499, 500 & 501 of IPC and further to quash the order dated 20.07.2016 passed by the learned Court of Sessions Judge, Bageshwar whereby the learned Court dismissed the Revision No. 08/2016, filed by the petitioner against the order dated 20.02.2016. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a fourth class employee/driver in the year 2003 during disaster in an emergency management centre at District Headquarter Bageshwar. On 01.10.2013, respondent no. 1, who was also an employee posted as Chief Revenue Accountant, lodged FIR No. 78/2013 against the petitioner and others in Kotwali Bageshwar for the offence under Section 380 of IPC with the allegation that the petitioner was involved in theft of a paper book/file from the District Office of Chief Revenue Accountant at Bageshwar. 5. Pursuant to the said FIR, the Police Bageshwar after investigation submitted final report in the matter. The learned Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bageshwar issued notices to the respondent no. 1 to file his objection, if any, on the final report submitted by the Police Bageshwar. However, respondent no. 1 moved an application before the Court stating that he has no objection on the final report, therefore, the C.J.M accepted the final report (Annexure No. 1 to the petition) 6. On 13.07.2015, the petitioner filed a complaint case (Annexure No. 2 to the petition) against the respondents before the learned Court of C.J.M. Bageshwar for offences punishable under Section 499, 500 & 501 of IPC. It was alleged in the complaint that the respondents with a malicious intention lodged false FIR against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 380 of IPC just to defame the petitioner. 7. In pursuance of the complaint, the petitioner examined Devi Dutt S/o Bachiram, Sambhu Dutt Kandpal S/o Shri Jagat Nath as witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. who supported the version of the petitioner. Statements of the witnesses (Annexure No. 3 & 4 to the petition) are also enclosed. 7. In pursuance of the complaint, the petitioner examined Devi Dutt S/o Bachiram, Sambhu Dutt Kandpal S/o Shri Jagat Nath as witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. who supported the version of the petitioner. Statements of the witnesses (Annexure No. 3 & 4 to the petition) are also enclosed. 8. The learned court of C.J.M. Bageshwar dismissed the complaint of the petitioner under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. vide order dated 20.02.2016 (Annexure No. 5 to the petition) and gave a finding that the case of the petitioner is covered under exception eight to Section 499 of IPC, therefore, the respondents cannot be summoned to face the trial for the offence of defamation. 9. Being aggrieved by the order dated 20.02.2016, the petitioner filed Criminal Revision No. 08/2016 before the Learned Court of Sessions Judge Bageshwar (Annexure No. 6 to the petition). Learned Court of Sessions Judge, Bageshwar dismissed the revision vide order dated 20.07.2016 (Annexure No. 7 to the petition) affirming the order of the trial Court, hence, the present petition with the following grounds has been preferred: (1) that, the opposite party filed no objection against final report itself shows that the allegations of theft against the petitioner were false; (2) that, the FIR was lodged against the petitioner without due care and attention, therefore, it cannot be said that the accusations were preferred in “good faith” which is defined in Section 52 of IPC, thus, exception 8 of Section 499 IPC is not attracted in the instant case; (3) that, the version of the complainant is fully supported by the statements of the two independent witnesses examined U/s 202 of Cr.P.C. (4) that, the Magistrate wrongly came to the conclusion that there are no sufficient grounds for proceedings and dismissed the complaint U/s 203 of Cr.P.C. that, the revisional court also wrongly dismissed the revision of the petitioner relying on the findings of the Trial Court. (5) that, the findings of both the Court below in respect of dismissal of the complaint is perverse and, as such, it is an abuse of process of law, therefore, petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is liable to be allowed. 10. On merits, while dealing with the main ground of defamation, it would be apt to quote Section 499 IPC, which reads as under: “499. 10. On merits, while dealing with the main ground of defamation, it would be apt to quote Section 499 IPC, which reads as under: “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.” 11. Eighth Exception to Section 499 of IPC, to which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel, 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.” 12. The word “good faith” has been defined in Section 52 IPC to mean: “52. “Good faith” - Nothing is said to be done or believed in “good faith” which is done or believed without due care and attention.” 13. This Court is of the view that no case is made out to put the respondents to trial for the alleged offence. There is no defamation as such. 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishore Balkrishna Nand Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, (2023) 8 SCC 358 held that: “16. Exception 8 to Section 499 clearly indicates that it is not a defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with regard to the subject-matter of accusation.” 15. In the light of the judgment cited above and after going through the record available on file, this Court do not find any illegality and perversity in the impugned orders passed by the Trial Court and the Revisional Court, therefore, the present C482 petition is liable to be dismissed and, the same is accordingly, dismissed.