Back
2017 Supreme(Pat) 982
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI, J.
Krishna Kant Upadhya s/o Dashrath Upadhya - Petitioner
Versus
The state of Bihar - Opposite party
Criminal Miscellaneous No.36231 of 2013
Decided On : 11-07-2017
For the Petitioner: Mr. Akhileshwar Prasad Singh, Sr. Adv.
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for specific allegations and evidence in defamation cases, the importance of good faith and public interest in making imputations, and the need to consider the publication as a whole.
Headnote:
Defamation - Publication of News Item - Section 501, 502, 34 of the IPC - Balraj Khanna v. Moti Ram (1971) 3 SCC 399, Laloo Prasad vrs. State of Bihar & Anr. (1997(2) Crimes 498), Jayalalitha vrs. Arcot No. Veerasamy (1977 Cr.L.J 4585), Amar Nath Singh vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., Dr. Chandra Bhushan Verma (2004(2) PLJR 481), Subramanian Swamy vs. Union of India (2016 Cr.L.J 3214), M.C. Verghese v. T.J. Poonan (1969) 1 SCC 37, Chaman Lal (1970) 1 SCC 590, Sahib Singh Mehra vs. State of U.P. (AIR 1965 SC 1451), Kunhikannan vs. Kalliani (1972 Ker. LT 619)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged an order summoning them to face trial for offences punishable under Section 501, 502, 34 of the IPC relating to the publication of a defamatory news item. The complainant alleged that the news item tarnished his image and reputation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant failed to incorporate the relevant passage of the news item and did not provide evidence regarding the defamatory nature of the publication. The court also considered various legal precedents related to defamation and the publication of news items.
Issues: The issues revolved around the defamatory nature of the news item, the complainant's failure to provide evidence, and the legal principles governing defamation and publication of news items.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for specific allegations and evidence in defamation cases. It also highlighted the importance of good faith and public interest in making imputations. The court considered the publication as a whole and cautioned against attaching too much importance to isolated passages.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order and allowed the petition.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 along with learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
2. Petitioners have challenged order dated 23.11.2012 passed by Sri Ghanshyam Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna relating to Complaint Case No.2440(c) of 2012 (Dr. Sudhakar Prasad Singh vs. Krishna Kant Upadhya & Ors.) whereby and where under petitioners have been summoned to face trial for offences punishable under Section 501, 502, 34 of the IPC.
3. Opposite Party No.2/complainant, Dr. Sudhakar Prasad Singh filed complaint petition arraying four persons including Hindustan Media Venture Limited under garb of Section 499 IPC punishable under Section 500, 501, 502, 503 IPC relating to publication of a news item in Hindustan Daily Newspaper dated 22.08.2012 and on account thereof, the complainant found the news item defamatory with a view to tarnish his image and reputation in the society.
4. While challenging the order impugned, it has been submitted on behalf of petitioners that from perusal of complaint petition it is evident that opposite party no.2/complainant had not mentioned the news item, and further, how it be a defamatory one as it is based upon the factual aspect so made available by the leader of the student union. Opposite party no.2/complainant, knowingly with held his mode of appointment as well as promotion having been allowed to him for which complaint was made by the union to the authority concerned which were also made available to the petitioners and a copy thereof, are annexure of the petition. So it is not the imputation as alleged rather factual as well as legal aspect which has not been controverted at the end of opposite party no.2, and that happens to be reason behind keeping mum on that very score. Keeping in view the aforesaid factual as well as legal aspect it could not be said that petitioners carried mensrea to publish the news item in order to malign the opposite party no.2/complainant. That being so, instant prosecution attracts quashing.
5. The learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has submitted that petitioners are Editor, Chief Editor of the Hindustan Daily Newspaper and on account thereof, they are duly accountable for the publication whereby imputation has been made against the opposite party no.2/complainant lowering his prestige in the society and so, they have rightly been made accused, and in likewise manner, summoned to face trial as has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in Gambhirsinh R. Dekare v. Falgunbhai Chimanbhai Patel reported in AIR 2013 SC 1590.
6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor endorsed the view expressed by learned counsel for the complainant/opposite party no.2.
7. From perusal of the complaint petition (Annexure-1), it is evident that complainant/opposite party no.2 had failed to incorporate the relevant passage of the news item which, in his opinion, happens to be defamatory one nor the opposite party no.2 as well as his witnesses deposed during course of enquiry with regard to contents thereof.
8. In Balraj Khanna v. Moti Ram, reported in (1971) 3 SCC 399 it has been held:
“26. In this case we have already referred to Ex. PW 3/B, which, according to the complainant, contains the statements made by the appellants during the discussion of the resolution leading to his suspension on December 11, 1964. The High Court, in this connection, has adverted to the evidence of PWs 1, 3 and 4 on this aspect. As to how far the evidence of those witnesses is to be accepted, is a matter which will arise only during the trial of the complaint. From the averments made in the complaint, which refers to various matters referred to in Ex. PW 3/B, we are of the opinion, that the complainant has furnished in a substantial measure the words of imputation, which, according to him, are defamatory. Therefore, the contention of Mr Daphtary that the complaint is defective inasmuch as it does not contain the actual words alleged
