2021 Supreme(Pat) 710

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Ashutosh Kumar, J.
Shiva Poly Tubes Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar & Ors. - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 737 of 2018
Decided On : 20-09-2021

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 195 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 340 – Revengeful prosecution – Cases are won or lost on production of evidence and its appreciation – In a criminal case, prosecution has to prove the allegation beyond all reasonable doubts – Test of "beyond all reasonable doubts" is very onerous one and prosecution might fail but such failure of prosecution is not necessarily on the ground of false accusation, but because of such accusation not being supported with a strong enough evidence – However, such acquittals cannot be taken as a ground for prosecuting informant/complainant for offences under Sections 195, 196, 211 read with Section 120B IPC and Sections 420, 499 and 504 of Indian Penal Code – Private complaint with respect to charges under Sections 195, 196, 211 and 120B is not maintainable – Underlying purpose of enacting Sections 195 and 340 Cr.P.C. appears to be to control tendency of private parties to start criminal prosecution because of a revengeful desire to harass the opponent – As a general rule, courts initiate such prosecution for expediency in securing interest of justice but only if there is a reasonable foundation for charge and there is a reasonable likelihood of conviction. (Paras 13, 18 and 21)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 499 – Defamation – It is no defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person if it be for public good that imputation should be made or published – Whether or not it is for public good is a question of fact – It is not a defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting merits of any case, civil or criminal, which has been decided by a court of justice or respecting conduct of any person as a party, witness or agent in any such case or respecting character of such person, as far as his character appears in that conduct and no further – It is also no 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 subject matter of accusation – If an imputation is made on character of another provided that imputation is made in good faith for protection of interests of person making it or any other person or for public good is no defamation – Lodging a criminal case against opposite party no. 2 which ended in acquittal, would not come within definition of the offence of defamation. (Paras 26 and 27)

Copyright Act, 1957 – Sections 63/65 and 68 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 195, 196, 211, 120B, 420, 504 and 499 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Passing off goods – Cognizance of offence – No Court could have taken cognizance under Sections 195, 196, 211 and 120B of Indian Penal Code on a private complaint in view of bar provided under Section 195 (1b) of the Cr.P.C. – So far as charges under Sections 420, 499 and 504 of IPC or Sections 63, 65 and 68 of Copyrights Act are concerned, those do not appear to have been made out from facts of the case – Nobody appears to have been cheated – Lodging a criminal case which ends in acquittal would not ipso facto become a ground for prosecuting a person for offence of defamation – It has not been proved before court of law which has appreciated evidence that there was any intention on part of petitioners to launch prosecution only for the purposes of damaging and harassing opposite party no. 2 and his brother – Element of conspiracy had to be proved which has not been done – There is nothing on record also to indicate that there was an intention to provoke opposite party no. 2 to commit breach of peace because of such provocation – Taking every allegation to be ex facie true, none of offences can at all be said to have been made out – Cognizance under Sections 195, 196, 211 and 120B IPC would be bad for reason of bar under Section 195(1b) Cr.P.C. – Petitioner may prefer appropriate application for damages or tortious liability but lodging of present criminal case against petitioners appears to be an act of revenge – Order of cognizance does not appear to be sustainable in eyes of law and set aside. (Paras 35 to 39, 42 and 43)