Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, J.
Vijay Agrawal Late Shri Ram Swaroop Agrawal - Petitioner
Versus
Nimish S. Agrawal S/o Shri Sunil Agarwal - Respondent
CRMP No. 936 & 942 of 2017
Decided On : 06-12-2023
Defamation - Family Dispute - Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 - IPC 500, 501, 469 - The court dismissed the complaint case for registration of complaint against the respondent under IPC sections 500, 501, and 469, upholding the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, on the grounds that the defamatory pleadings were made before the Court and not in a public domain, falling under the eighth exception of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's daughter lodged an FIR against the respondent and his parents for cruelty. The respondent filed an application for custody of their daughter, making defamatory statements against the petitioners. The petitioners filed a complaint case for defamation, which was dismissed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the relationship between the parties was not cordial, and the respondent's act fell under the eighth exception of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. The court dismissed the petitions, stating that dragging the litigation further would only worsen the situation.
Issues: The main issue was whether the defamatory pleadings made in the case before the Court amounted to a publication or not, and whether the complaint case for defamation was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the defamatory pleadings were made before the Court and not in a public domain, falling under the eighth exception of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. The court also emphasized that the relationship between the parties was not cordial, and further litigation would only worsen the situation.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitions, upholding the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, on the grounds that the defamatory pleadings were made before the Court and not in a public domain, falling under the eighth exception of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code.
ORDER :
1. Heard Mr. T.K. Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. Avinash K. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. Challenge in these petitions is to the order dated 23.06.2017 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Criminal Revision No. 67/2017 {Cr.M.P. No. 936/2017} and Criminal Revision No. 68/2017 {Cr.M.P. No. 942/2017} whereby the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge has upheld the order dated 22.03.2017 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg, dismissing the application of the petitioners for registration of complaint case under Section 500, 501 and 469 of the Indian Penal Code against the respondent.
3. Mr. T.K.Jha, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioner-Vijay Agrawal is a reputed businessman of District- Durg and also is owner of a Star Group Hotel in the Durg District of Chhattisgarh and also runs a massive catering business in the Indian Railways and due to such accomplishments and establishments, the petitioner enjoys a good reputation and status not only in Durg District but in entire state of Chhattisgarh. The petitioner actively participates in social works and gives donations to several good causes since many years. The petitioner-Ruhi Agrawal is the daughter of petitioner-Vijay Agrawal. She is a well qualified person holding a degree in Master of Business Administration (Entrepreneurship and Leadership) and is running Nirvana Educom which works in education sector and the said institution of the petitioner is also a franchisee partner of reputed Shoka-A Birla Preschool, which is envisioned to be a centre for academic excellence. Similar to her father, she is also actively participates in social welfare activities and thus has a good reputation in the society.
4. Mr. Jha further submits that Ruhi Agrawal was married to the respondent in the year 2007 and since then she was living in her marital home but due to the constant and severe cruelty committed by the parents of the respondent as well as the respondent himself who also assaulted Ruhi Agrawal physically and mentally, subsequently as a last resort, she lodged an FIR dated 07/05/2016 bearing Crime No. 415/2016 against the respondent and his parents at Police Station-Supela, Bhilai under section 498A, 377, 34 of IPC and Section 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and the police, in pursuance of the said FIR and enquiry, arrested the respondent as well his parents.
5. The respondent to somehow avenge the said arrest, then presented an application under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 bearing Case No. 79/2016 for the custody of his daughter who is currently living with her mother Smt. Ruhi Agrawal, before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, District Durg in which the respondent, instead of putting forward his case concerning the subject matter of custody of his daughter, made defamatory and outrageous statements to somehow assasinate the character of the petitioners-Vijay Agrawal and his daughter Ruhi Agrawal which resulted in causing grave mental anguish and pain to the petitioners. The said averments were made with the sole intent to harm and tarnish the image of the petitioners who enjoy a good reputation in the society wherein the respondent had every reason to believe that it will severely harm the reputation of the petitioner.
6. Mr. Jha further submits that the said application under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 was filed by the respondent on 05/12/2016 and the notice of the same was received by the petitioner on 13/12/2016 at his residence and at that time, the petitioner as well his friend Mr. Prakash Parihar was present at the residence. The said paragraphs/averments of the notice concerning custody was read out by the petitioner-Vijay Agrawal in the presence of his friend and later by his daughter Smt. Ruhi Agrawal. Disgraceful, defamatory and false claims were made by the respondent against the petitioner and his daughter. The petitioners were take
AI
Defamatory pleadings made before the Court and not in a public domain may fall under the eighth exception of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, and in cases of family disputes, further litigation ....
Defamation claims require specific allegations and evidence; vague claims do not warrant criminal proceedings.
The main legal point established is that relevant averments in civil proceedings are necessary, and the pendency of a civil suit does not preclude the filing of a private complaint for defamation if ....
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.
Important points:When concurrent findings of facts rendered by the trial court and the appellate court are sought to be set aside in revision, the High Court does not, in the absence of perversity, u....
Defamation, intentional insult, criminal intimidation and insulting gestures – Merely pendency of a civil suit is cannot render a criminal proceeding otiose but it is to be seen whether complaint its....
Statements in judicial complaints can constitute defamation; however, delays and the need for evidence in support must be taken into account, reinforcing the importance of reputation and good faith i....
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
