Publication of true facts in a Senate meeting does not constitute defamation unless there is intent to harm the reputation of the individual.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 500, 501, and 34 - Petitioners sought to quash criminal proceedings for defamation based on Senate meeting minutes. The court found no intention to harm the complainant's reputation, thus quashing the proceedings. (Paras 1, 20)

(B) Defamation - Essential ingredients - To constitute defamation, there must be an imputation intending to harm reputation. Mere publication of true facts does not amount to defamation. (Paras 13, 19)

Facts of the case:
The complainant, a lecturer and Senate member, alleged defamation by the petitioners during a Senate meeting where he raised questions about the Vice Chancellor's vehicle. The minutes of the meeting were published, leading to the complaint. (Paras 3, 4)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the publication of the Senate meeting minutes did not constitute defamation as there was no intent to harm the complainant's reputation. (Paras 18, 20)

Issues: Whether the publication of Senate meeting minutes constitutes defamation under IPC. (Paras 15, 19)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the essential ingredients of defamation were not met, as there was no intent to harm the complainant's reputation. (Paras 19, 20)

Result: Criminal Writ Petition is allowed; complaint STC No. 170 of 2006 is quashed.

JUDGMENT :

(Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.)

1. By the present Petition, the Petitioners have invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for brevity to be referred as “Cr.P.C.”) and thereby prayed to quash and set aside criminal proceedings bearing STC No. 170 of 2006 instituted by present Respondent No. 1 for the offence punishable under Section 500 and 501 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity to be referred as “IPC”). Consequently prayed to quash and set aside order of issuance of process passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.4, Ahmednagar, on 14.05.2009.

2. Present Petitioners are the original accused Nos. 1 to 4 and present Respondent No.1 is the original complainant in STC No. 170 of 2006. (For the sake of brevity, hereinafter, parties to the present petition would be referred in their original capacity as “complainant” and “accused”). On 24.06.2009, this Court issued Rule. Today, the matter is heard finally.

3. The complainant instituted a criminal complaint bearing STC No. 170 of 2006 alleging that, he is working as a Lecturer. He was Head of the Department at Gangadhar Shastri Gune Ayurved Mahavidyala, Ahmednagar. Being head of the department, he was elected as a Member of Board of Studies. He was also elected as a Member of Faculty. Subsequently, he was elected as Dean of Faculty of Ayurved. Being Dean of Ayurved Faculty, he was also the Senate Member of Maharashtra University of Health Sciences (MUHS). The Accused No.1 is the Vice Chancellor of MUHS. The Accused No.2 is the Registrar of MUHS. Accused No. 3 was a Senate Member at the time of commission of offence. Previously, the Accused No.4 was a Senate Member.

4. The complainant alleged that, on 14.06.2006, Senate Meeting was held and Accused No.1, presided the said meeting being a Vice Chancellor of the University, Accused No.2 acted as a Secretary, Accused No. 3, being Senate Member participated in said meeting. During course of meeting, the complainant raised the question that, “Whether the “Ambar Lamp can be put on the Car of the Vice Chancellor? and Whether the words “Government of Maharashtra can be written on the Car of the Vice Chancellor as well as on other vehicles of the University?”. The Senate Member replied to the said questions to the complainant, however, during said meeting, the Accused No. 3 has made a proposal/objection that, the question raised by the complainant should be not be put up for discussion and the complainant be condemned for raising such questions. The accused No. 4, being Senate Member seconded said proposal and Resolution No. 2/2006 was came to be passed. Since the minutes of said meeting/debates on Resolution No. 2/2006 was published in Booklet and circulated in the entire State of Maharashtra as well as affixed on conspicuous place of the University, therefore, his reputation is maligned and he is defamed in the MUHS as well as in the entire State. Therefore, the petitioners/accused have committed an offence punishable under sections 500 and 501 read with Section 34 of IPC.

5. After recording the Verification on 14.05.2009, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class passed an order and issued the process against the Petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 4 for the offence punishable under sections 500 and 501 read with Section 34 of IPC.

6. Being aggrieved by the order of issuance of process, the Petitioners have filed present petition and prayed to quash and set aside criminal proceedings resultantly prayed to quash and set aside the order of issuance of process passed by the learned JMFC on 14.05.2009.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused canvassed that, on 14.02.2006, Resolution was passed in the meeting of Senate Members after the discussion and debate on the Agenda/proposal submitted by the Accused No. 3. Therefore, publication of minutes of Senate Meeting in form of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document