Back
2024 Supreme(SC) 81
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Sanjay Upadhya – Appellant
Versus
Anand Dubey – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No(S). 486 of 2024(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 3180 of 2020)
Decided on : 29-01-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. S.K. Gangele, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prathvi Raj Chauhan, Adv. Ms. Priya Sharma, Adv. Mr. Abhaya Nath Das, Adv. Mr. Abhay Singh, Adv. Mr. Satish Kumar, AOR
IMPORTANT POINT
Defamation – Publication of defamatory news article in a Newspaper in good faith and in exercise of Fundamental Right of Freedom of Speech and Expression enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of Constitution of India, cannot be termed as defamation.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 467, 468, 469 and 471 – Constitution of India – Article 19(1)(a) – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 203 – Defamation – Publication of defamatory news article in a Newspaper – Order passed by Magistrate rejecting complaint of respondent-complainant is a well-reasoned order – News article in question was published in good faith and in exercise of Fundamental Right of Freedom of Speech and Expression enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of Constitution of India – View taken by Magistrate cannot be termed to be illegal or unjustified warranting interference by High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction – Order passed by Additional Sessions Judge as well as Order passed by High Court quashed and set aside and criminal proceedings quashed. (Paras 8 to 11)
Facts of the case:
Instant appeal has been preferred by accused appellant who is facing prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 500 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 in a complaint filed by the respondent-complainant Anand Dubey in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hoshangabad.
Findings of Court:
All proceedings sought to be taken against accused appellant in pursuance of the complaint filed by respondent-complainant under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 are also quashed.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Key Points: - The judgment holds that publication in good faith and in exercise of Article 19(1)(a) rights cannot be termed defamation under IPC Section 500. (!) - The trial court’s order rejecting the complaint was well-reasoned and correct, acknowledging the defender’s publication was in good faith and protected by the Constitution. (!) - The High Court and revisional court's interference was unwarranted; the revisional courts’ orders were quashed and the criminal proceedings were quashed. (!) (!) (!) - The appeal resulted in quashing of all proceedings against the accused under Section 500 IPC. (!) - The case involved a newspaper publication in 2013 and addressed whether press publication could be prosecuted for defamation when made in good faith. (!) (!) - The Magistrate’s order dated 12th June, 2017, rejecting the complaint, was upheld as well-reasoned. (!) (!) - The respondent-complainant’s revision and subsequent high court orders were set aside. (!) (!) - The appellant was the registered owner of a newspaper; the publication in question bore the title alleging a false matter about an advocate. (!) - The final outcome: all proceedings under Section 500 IPC against the appellant are quashed. (!) - The decision references constitutional protections of speech and expression as a core factor in determining defamation. (!)
What is the effect of publication of a news article in good faith on defamation under IPC Section 500?
What is the scope of the Fundamental Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression under Article 19(1)(a) in defamation cases?
What is the appropriate standard for revisional interference in quashing proceedings under defamation laws when the trial court’s order is well-reasoned?
JUDGMENT :
Mehta, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The instant appeal has been preferred by the accused appellant who is facing prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 500 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 in a complaint filed by the respondent-complainant Anand Dubey in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hoshangabad. The complaint was founded on an allegation that the appellant who is the registered owner of a Daily newspaper named ‘Sunday Blast’ having its registered office at Malviya Hospital, Kothi Bazar, Hoshangabad Tehsil and District Hoshangabad, allowed a news article to be published in the edition dated 24th February, 2013 bearing a title “Advocate ne pan masala vyavasayi par karaya jhuta mamla darj”.
3. The respondent-complainant filed the subject complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hoshangabad alleging that the appellant had allowed the said news article to be published in his newspaper without ascertaining the true facts and that such publication brought down the reputation of the respondent-complainant in the eyes of the public at large and thus, the accused appellant was liable to be prosecuted for criminal defamation punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
4. The learned Magistrate, after considering the averments made in the complaint and the statement of witnesses examined under Sections 200 and 202 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(hereinafter being referred to as ‘CrPC’) rejected the same vide order dated 12th June, 2017.
5. The respondent-complainant preferred a revision against the order dated 12th June, 2017, which came to be allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad vide order dated 15th October, 2018 and the order passed by the learned Magistrate was reversed. The accused appellant herein challenged the said order by filing MCRC No. 44473 of 2018 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh which dismissed the same vide order dated 29th January, 2020. The order dated 29th January, 2020 and all further proceedings of the complaint are assailed in the present appeal.
6. No one has appeared to contest the appeal on behalf of the respondent-complainant despite service.
7. We have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant and have gone through the material placed on record including the orders passed by the Courts below as well as the High Court.
8. Having considered the entirety of the material available on record, we find that the order dated 12th June, 2017 passed by the learned Magistrate First Class, Hoshangabad rejecting the complaint of the respondent-complainant is a well-reasoned order. The learned Magistrate in its order referred to the Fundamental Right of Freedom of Speech and Expression enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and held that the publication in question did not warrant prosecution of the accused appellant for the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. We are also of the view that the news article in question was published in good faith and in exercise of the Fundamental Right of Freedom of Speech and Expression enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
9. As an upshot of above discussion, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Magistrate cannot be termed to be illegal or unjustified warranting interference by the High Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction.
10. Resultantly, the order dated 15th October, 2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge as well as the order dated 29th January, 2020 passed by the High Court are quashed and set aside.
11. As a consequence, all proceedings sought to be taken against the accused appellant in pursuance of the complaint filed by the respondent-complainant under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 are also quashed.
12. The appeal stands allowed accordingly.
13. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
