Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.
Sanjay Kumar Sharma - Appellant
Vs.
Krishnendu Narayan Choudhury - Respondent
CRR 1791 of 2023 (Assigned) With CRAN 3, 5 of 2024
Decided On : 05-08-2024
Defamation - Criminal Proceedings - IPC Sections 182, 211, 499, 500, 503, 504 - The court analyzed the essential ingredients of defamation and related offenses, concluding that the petitioner's statements were defamatory and lacked substantiation, warranting continuation of the trial.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash criminal proceedings against him for allegedly defaming the complainant, a public official, by labeling him as corrupt in various applications, which the complainant claimed harmed his reputation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's statements prima facie constituted defamation and other related offenses under the IPC, as they were made with intent to harm the complainant's reputation without substantiating evidence.
Issues: Whether the statements made by the petitioner constituted defamation and other offenses under the IPC, warranting continuation of the criminal proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the essential ingredients of the alleged offenses were present, and the lack of evidence to support the petitioner's claims did not absolve him from liability.
Result: The petition to quash the criminal proceedings was dismissed, allowing the trial to proceed.
JUDGMENT :
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.
1. The present revision has been preferred by the Accused/Petitioner praying for quashing of impugned Criminal Proceeding being 269C of 2023 under Section 200 of the Code Criminal Procedure, 1973 with respect to the alleged commission of the Offences under Sections 182/211/499/500/503/504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 presently pending before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Malda, West Bengal.
2. The case of the Opposite Party/Complainant is that the petitioner stated in various applications/petitions including Writ Application(s) that the opposite party was a “Corrupt Chairman” and that a First Information Report was also filed against him, wherein he used such terms and that has harmed his reputation.
3. It is further stated that:-
“The complainant currently serves as the chairman of the English Bazar Municipality, who had been elected for the first time to the position in 1995. He is also an ex-MLA and ex-Minister-in-Charge of the Department of Tourism for the Government of West Bengal. In the year 2004 he was awarded the "Environmental Excellency" award by Govt. of West Bengal and Central Govt. By virtue of his chairmanship, he represents the public in general and has gained immense knowledge of the political environment during his career. His distinguished personality and leadership style have earned him a reputation as a respected figure. As a representative of the public, he diligently performs his duty towards the development of society at large, which has garnered him widespread appreciation among the general public.”
4. The case of the accused/petitioner in short is that:-
“From the facts as mentioned in the petition itself, there is no whisper that the petitioner’s activities caused the opposite party to create a breach of peace and also nowhere has it been written that the petitioner threatened the opposite party with regards to his person or property as a result of which he did something which he was not supposed to do as per law and moreover the said Section 503 is a definition and not a punishment by virtue of which it could not never have been added as a Section in the Offences part of the petition of Complaint and the Cognizance taken by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was also bad in law. The petitioner filed numerous complaints against the opposite party, because he in reality does nefarious and corrupt acts and only to coerce the petitioner to withdraw the said Complaint(s) such criminal proceedings have been brought forth.”
5. The relevant extract from the letter of complaint dated 10.09.2022 filed by the petitioner before the Executive Officer, English Bazar Municipality, is as follows:-
“i) That I would like to state that my building plan has been approved thrice from the English Bazar Municipality, Malda. First Plan was sanctioned on 07.03.2013, bearing sanction Number 14/2012-2013 (G+2 with one Mezzanine Floor), Second Plan was sanctioned on 22.08.2013, bearing sanction number 04/2023-2014 (G+3 with one Mezzanine Floor) and Third Plan was sanctioned on 16.11.2017, bearing sanction number 03/2017-2018 (G+3 with one Mezzanine Floor). Moreover Completion Certificate was issued by the English Bazar Municipality against holding number 789/7/490 on 04.01.2018 vide Memo Number 2579/IV-2/17-18.
(ii) That at the time of passing the extension plan dated 22.08.2013 the municipal officials visited the spot and imposed penalty amounting Rs. 10,000/- which I have deposited on 16.08.2013 vide receipt number 3755.
(iii) That you are very well aware of the fact that on 23.03.2014 an FIR was lodged against the then corrupt Chairman who is also the present Chairman of English Bazar Municipality Mr. Krishnendu Narayan Choudhury in English Bazar Police Station for making illegal demand amounting Rs. 2,00,00,000/-(Two Crores) against construction of my new residential building. Immediately after lodging the FIR the stop construction notice was issued on 24.03.2014 in revenge withou
AI
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.
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.
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 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....
(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....
A defamation claim requires clear evidence that the statement harmed the complainant's reputation in the eyes of others, which was not established in this case.
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
