1996(7) Supreme 157
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy, Faizan Uddin & G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
Shatrughna Prasad Sinha -Appellant
versus
Rajbhau Surajmal Rathi & Ors. -Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1696 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1369 of 1991)
Decided on 10-9-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Indrajeet Roy, Sr. Advocate, P.N. Misra, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Sushil Kumar Jain, Advocate (A.C.) and Ms. Pratibha Jain, Advocate.
(ii) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 190(1)(a)-Cognizance for offence of defamation on private complaint-petition to quash complaint-It is not province of this Court to appreciate evidence or scope of and meaning of statement-Court has to read the complaint as a whole and find out whether allegations disclosed constitute an offence-Case set up by appellant were defences open to be taken-No case warranting quashing of the complaint. (Para 12)
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. Though the respondents were duly served and on an occasion appeared in person, subsequently they did not appear. Resultantly, we requested Shri Sushil Kumar Jain, Advocate of the Bar to assist the Court as amicus curiae. We place on record our deep appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by him.
3. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order of the High Court of Bombay made on January 21, 1991 in Crl. Writ Petition No. 1545 of 1990. The facts relevant for the purpose of this case and we proceed on the basis thereof are that allegations were made in the complaint filed by the respondents in the Courts of Magistrate at Pune and Nasik; we deal with those allegations as they constitute offence for which the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, could take cognizance. In paragraph 2 it is narrated that the complainant-respondent was a social activist belonging to the Marwari Community, and that the respondent-second accused respectively is the editor and publisher of Stardust, Film Magazine. An interview she had with the appellant in June 1989, came to be published at page 82 of that magazine. During the course of the interview, the appellant was alleged to have made statements outraging the religious feeling of the Marwari community and also defamed the members of Marwari community as a class. In the complaint filed at Pune, what he has stated is as under :
"The Complainant submits that in June 89 the Accused No. 1 has with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of Marwari Community made the said statement. By the statement of the Accused No. 1, the structure of National Integrity is being paralysed. The feelings of Marwari Community also being hurt by the Statement made by the Accused No. 1. The Statement of Accused No. 1 goes to show that Marwari Community is not a Class belonging to India and they have not faith and love towards India, their mother land. It is implied from the said statement that Marwaris are traitors and enemies of India. So also accused No.2 has also printed and published the said statement in Star Dust Magazine of 1989 with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of Marwari Community."
4. The rest of the paragraphs are only the consequential narration of the allegations in paragraph 3. According to the respondents, these allegations constitute offence punishable under Section 295-A and Section 500 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC, for short). The Magistrate had taken cognizance and issued notice to the appellant for appearance. When it was challenged in the writ petition, the learned single Judge of the High Court had held that on a reading of the complaint as a whole, no offence under Section 295A could be made out; however, the allegations constitute prima facie offence triable by the Magistrate under Section 500, IPC. Thus, these appeals by special leave.
5. Section 295A of the IPC envisages the essential ingredients of the punishment and provides that whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. The quoted para does not contain essential facts constituting the offence.
6. Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908 (Cr.P.C., for short) in Chapter XV provides as under :
"A Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate provided that when the complaint is made in writing, t
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.