Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Ananda Kumar Mukherjee, J.
Malancha Mohinta - Appellant
Versus
Dipak Mohinta - Respondent
CRR 1114 of 2010
Decided On : 23-03-2022
Defamation - Indian Penal Code - Section 499 - The court analyzes section 499 of the IPC, which defines defamation as making or publishing any imputation concerning a person with the intention to harm their reputation. It examines the exceptions to section 499 and determines that they apply to the petitioner's case. The court also refers to section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which sets the period of limitation for taking cognizance of an offense under section 500 of the IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a wife, seeks to quash a proceeding under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code filed by the opposite party against her for defamation. The petitioner had written a letter to the Manager of Indian Overseas Bank, disclosing the alleged torture and criminal case against the opposite party. The petitioner argues that the proceeding is barred by limitation and that the exceptions to section 499 of the IPC apply. The opposite party argues that the offense is of a continuing nature and not barred by limitation.
Finding of the Court:
The court examines the contents of the letter and the circumstances surrounding it. It concludes that the letter was a statement of fact and not an imputation to harm the reputation of the opposite party. The court also finds that the offense is barred by limitation under section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It further analyzes the exceptions to section 499 of the IPC and determines that they apply to the petitioner's case. The court cites relevant case law to support its findings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court holds that the proceeding is barred by limitation and that the exceptions to section 499 of the IPC apply. It quashes the impugned proceeding and all related orders.
Result: The revisional application is allowed on contest. The impugned proceeding and all related orders are quashed.
JUDGMENT
Ananda Kumar Mukherjee, J. - This revisional application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is a fall out of a matrimonial discord between the petitioner and the opposite party. The petitioner/wife by filling this application under section 482 has sought for quashing of the proceeding in Case No. AC 968 of 2009 (TR No. 225 of 2009) under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, filed by the opposite party against the petitioner, now pending before learned Judicial Magistrate 9th Court, Alipore, South 24 Parganas.
2. A synoptical resume of petitioner's case is that, the petitioner got married to the opposite party on 29.11.1990 according to Hindu Rights and Customs. Soon after the marriage the opposite party subjected the petitioner to physical and mental torture on the demand of dowry from her paternal house. On 15.11.1994 petitioner gave birth to a female child. She made constant effort to adjust with the opposite party to maintain a peaceful conjugal life but the opposite party continued to torture her and on 25.04.1997 the petitioner along with her minor child were driven out from her matrimonial home on being abused and assaulted by the opposite party and his elder brother.
3. The petitioner lodged a written complaint on 25.04.1997 before the Office-in-Charge at Behala Police Station which was registered as Behala Police Station Case No. 248 (4) 1997, under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. In connection with the said case opposite party was arrested on 27.04.1997. On completion of investigation police submitted charge sheet No. 105 dated 04.06.1997 against the opposite party/husband and his elder brother. Learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate at Alipore took cognizance of the offence and transferred the case to the learned Judicial Magistrate 9th Court, Alipore.
4. In the meantime, the opposite party filed a suit against the petitioner under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, praying for a decree of restitution of conjugal rights. Subsequently, opposite party amended the prayer and sought for a decree of divorce against the petitioner under section 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, pending before learned Additional District Judge, 1st Track Court to South 24 Parganas. It is the further case of the petitioner that on 16.04.2007 the Matrimonial Suit No. 18 of 2006 was dismissed with an observation that the opposite party cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong, causing serious disruption in the matrimonial relationship and was not entitled to a decree of divorce.
5. The actual dispute in this revisional application stems from a letter dated 14.05.1997, written by the petitioner to the Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, 195/4, Rash Behari Avenue, Kolkata-700029, to intimate him that the petitioner, a legally married wife of the opposite party who is an Assistant Manager of Overseas Bank at Ballygunge Branch has tortured her and driven her out from the matrimonial home and furthermore a criminal case has been initiated against the opposite party in which the opposite party had been arrested and subsequently released on bail. The petitioner requested the Manager to take necessary action in this matter.
6. In the criminal case under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, bearing BGR No. 1641 of 1997 the petitioner, accused opposite party and his brother filed a joint petition on 16.06.2008 wherein she stated that she was willing to withdraw the aforesaid case against the opposite party and his brother due to intervention of common friends, relatives and well wishers and in the interest and welfare of the minor daughter. In the criminal proceeding learned Judicial Magistrate examined the petitioner and passed a judgment on 18.09.2008 finding the accused persons not guilty of the offence punishable under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and acquitted them.
7. After disposal of the criminal case, leading to the acquittal on the basis of such impression created by t
AI
The proceeding is barred by limitation and the exceptions to section 499 of the IPC apply.
Where part of overt acts, or at least one instance among overt acts alleged to be committed in India, sanction under Section 188 of Cr.P.C. is not necessary in such cases.
Cognizance of offence – Cognizance’ ought to be taken within specified period from commission of offence but complainant should not be put to prejudice, if for reasons beyond control of prosecuting a....
Cognizance of offences under Section 498A IPC is barred by limitation if allegations are not continuous; sanction under Section 188 Cr.P.C. is required only if the offence is committed entirely outsi....
The offence under Section 498-A IPC is a continuing offence, allowing limitation to commence from the last act of cruelty, and can be extended in the interest of justice.
The limitation for prosecuting under Section 498-A IPC starts from the last act of cruelty, and vague allegations against in-laws do not justify prosecution.
Point of Law : Language of Section 468(3) makes it imperative that the limitation provided for taking cognizance is in respect of the offence charged and not in respect of offence finally proved.
Complaint filed by the respondent No.2 would be barred by Section 300 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code being successive prosecution as for the very set of allegations, earlier complaint filed by th....
The Court reiterated that the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC should be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution, and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
