Back
2011 Supreme(Cal) 1381
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Asim Kumar Ray, J.
Gautam Deb - Petitioner
Versus
Sri Mukul Roy - Respondent
CRJMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
Decided On: September 30, 2011
Mr. Bikas Ranjan Bhattacharjee, R.S. Chattopadhyay and Samim Ahmed, for the Petitioner
Mr. Debasish Roy and Rajdeep Majumder, for the State
The question of whether a statement is defamatory and falls within the ambit of Section 499 of IPC, and whether the accused is entitled to protection under Explanation 4 or the tenth exception to Section 499 of IPC, are questions of fact and matters for evidence, which cannot be determined at the stage of a revisional application.
Headnote:
DEFAMATION - PRESS CONFERENCE STATEMENT - TENTH EXCEPTION TO SECTION 499 OF IPC - GOOD FAITH AND PUBLIC GOOD - QUASHING OF PROCEEDING - POWER OF HIGH COURT UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner/accused, during a press conference, made defamatory statements against the opposite party/complainant and his party, alleging that they were involved in black money dealings. The opposite party filed a complaint under Section 500 of IPC, and the learned Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons to the petitioner/accused. The petitioner/accused filed a revisional application seeking to quash the proceeding on the ground that the statement was made in good faith and for public interest and fell within the tenth exception to Section 499 of IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the question of whether the petitioner/accused is entitled to protection under Explanation 4 or will fall within the ambit of the tenth exception that the statement press conference was made in good faith and for public good are questions of fact and matters for evidence. Therefore, the proceeding is required to be substantially addressed to and tested through the trial with the assistance of evidence of the parties. The prayer for quashing of the proceeding pending before the learned Court below is yet to reach that stage.
Issues: 1. Whether the statement made by the petitioner/accused during the press conference was defamatory and fell within the ambit of Section 499 of IPC? 2. Whether the petitioner/accused was entitled to protection under Explanation 4 or the tenth exception to Section 499 of IPC? 3. Whether the proceeding pending before the learned Court below was liable to be quashed under Article 227 of the Constitution?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the statement made by the petitioner/accused during the press conference was prima facie defamatory and fell within the ambit of Section 499 of IPC. 2. The Court held that the question of whether the petitioner/accused was entitled to protection under Explanation 4 or the tenth exception to Section 499 of IPC was a question of fact and matter for evidence, which could not be determined at the stage of the revisional application. 3. The Court held that the proceeding pending before the learned Court below was not liable to be quashed under Article 227 of the Constitution, as the case was squarely covered by the decision in Jeffrey J. Diermeier and Anr. v. State of West Bengal and Anr. (supra).
Final Decision: The revisional application was dismissed.
This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing the proceeding being complaint Case No. C/11922 of 2011 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Calcutta.
2. The factual background leading to the presentation of this application in a nutshell is that the opposite party filed a petition of complaint before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, alleging, inter alia, that on 16th April, 2011 petitioner/accused during his press conference made defamatory statement saying that "All India Trinamul Congress is spending 'black money' to the tune of Rs. 100 crores to fund the Assembly elections and since March 25, the 22 Trinamul candidates have been given Rs. 15 Lakhs each (amounting to nearly Rs. 34 crores). Such funds are ill-gotten and vouchers were burnt later on to destroy the evidence. Since one of the candidates for the ensuring Assembly election, namely, Upen Biswas did not accede to such proposal and is not involved with such illegal black money business, so the All India Trinamul Congress is trying to ensure that Upen Biswas loses the Assembly sit. Furthermore, air conditioned rooms are being booked for Mamanta Banerjee and her associates and they are travelling by helicopters but source of such income of the party remains undisclosed, thereby clearly indicating that the party deals in black money business. Mamata Banerjee has claimed that she has sold paintings to the tune of Rs. 2 crores but who has purchased such worthless and unappreciable paintings is unknown to anyone. Mamata Banerjee who claims herself to be a symbol of honesty and wears rubber slippers and All India Trinamul Congress leader Mukul Roy (the complainant herein) are responsible for the handling of the entire black money business that is being carried on. The other leaders of the party like Partha Chatterjee, Subrata Mukherjee and Somen Mitra are unaware of such black money dealings as Mamata Banerjee do not trust them and have no confidence on them" The press conference was made intentionally to harm the reputation of the opposite party/complainant and his party which was telecasted through a Bengali television channel, namely, 24 Ghanta' and thereby lowered the credit of the opposite party/complainant and his party in the estimation of the general people, friends and others. The said statement of the petitioner/accused were also published in the daily newspaper irrespective of the fact that the same were false and baseless and were made willfully and deliberately with motive to lower the reputation of the opposite party/complainant.
3. On 26th April, 2011, the learned Magistrate passed an order taking cognizance and directing the issuance of summons upon the petitioner/accused. So this revisional application.
4. Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharjee, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner/accused has contended that the complaint ipso facto does not make out a ground for defamation as defined under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. The statement made by the petitioner was in good faith and for public interest when the election was at the door. The same will fall within the protective umbrella of tenth exception to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. The said statement was neither defamatory nor slanderous or anything to do personally with the complainant. Therefore, the order impugned whereby the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta after taking cognizance issued the summons may be interfered with and the proceeding pending before the learned Court below may be quashed.
5. Mr. Bhattacharjee has referred to the following decisions:-
1. AIR 1972 SC 2609 (G. Narsimhan and Ors. v. T.V. Chokkappa);
2. AIR 1966 SC 97 (Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.);
3. AIR (32) 1945 Patna 450 (Jagannath Mishra v. Ram Chandra Deo);
4. AIR 1966 All 377 (Purshottam Lal Sayal v. Prem Shanker);
5. AIR 1956 SC 541 (Kartar and Ors. v. The Stat
