Back
SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL)
United Bank of India – Appellant
Versus
Debasis Sarkar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.
1. The present revision has been preferred praying for quashing of Complaint Case No. CS/25013/19 under Sections 500/501/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and all orders passed therein including order dated 26.06.2019 passed by the Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Calcutta thereby taking cognizance and order dated 15.07.2019 passed by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court at Calcutta thereby issuing process against the petitioners.
2. The petitioners’ case is that petitioner No. 1 is a nationalized bank having its corporate finance office. The petitioner No. 2 is presently the Managing Director and CEO of the petitioner No. 1 and the petitioner No. 3 is the Assistant General Manager of the petitioner No. 1.
3. The accused No. 3 in the petition of complaint namely Pawan Bajaj was the erstwhile Managing Director and CEO of the petitioner No. 1. However, he has expired on or about 17.02.2019.
4. The petitioner No. 1 through petitioner No. 3 had lodged a complaint dated 21.10.2016 with the Central Bureau of Investigation against one M/s. Ramsarup Utpadak (Unit II) of Ramsarup Industries Limited and its Directors inter-alia on the premises
In a defamation case, the accused must have acted with the intention to harm the reputation of the complainant and must have made or published a defamatory statement.
Statements made without evidence that harm a public official's reputation can constitute defamation under IPC, justifying criminal proceedings.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the accused persons were entitled to the benefit of exception 1 to 9 of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, as the imputation was made in....
The court established that defamation claims require clear intent to harm, and the absence of such intent, along with applicable exceptions, can lead to quashing of proceedings.
The court established that the intent to harm reputation is a key element of defamation under Section 499 of the IPC, and the burden of proving that an imputation falls within the Exceptions lies wit....
The court held that allegations of defamation and criminal intimidation lacked substance and failed to meet the necessary legal criteria under IPC Sections 500 and 506.
(1) Defamation – ”BJP” is a determinate and identifiable body and complaint for defamation under Section 500 IPC is maintainable.(2) Defamation – Right of a person against whom offence of defamation ....
The court established that for a defamation claim under IPC Sections 499 and 500, the publication must lower the reputation of the complainant, and the truth of the statements must be proven in their....
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
