Back
1990 Supreme(Del) 171
High Court Of Delhi
GIRISII KAKKAR - Appellant
Versus
DHAKWANTI - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) 127 of 1987
Decided On : 05/25/1990
A.K.Kohli, K.K.Sud, S.K.AGRAWAL
The High Court has the inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC where the allegations made in the complaint do not disclose any essential ingredients of an offence against the accused.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 482 - QUASHING OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS - DEFAMATION - SECTION 500 INDIAN PENAL CODE - IMPUTATIONS MADE IN JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS - SCOPE OF INHERENT JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT - GUIDELINES FOR QUASHING CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 499 INDIAN PENAL CODE AND EXCEPTIONS - ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES - DETERMINATION OF DEFAMATORY INTENT AND KNOWLEDGE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Girish Kakkar, was accused of defamation under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for allegedly making written submissions in court denying the relationship between the complainant and her husband. The complainant, Dr. Dhanwanti, filed a complaint against the petitioner and other accused, alleging that they had defamed her by making imputations about her relationship with her husband in various proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the allegations made in the complaint, even if taken as true, did not constitute defamation against the petitioner. The court found that the petitioner's denial of the relationship between the complainant and her husband was made in the context of protecting an eviction order and that there was no defamatory intent, knowledge, or belief attributable to the petitioner.
Issues: 1. Whether the allegations made in the complaint constitute defamation against the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner's denial of the relationship between the complainant and her husband was made with defamatory intent, knowledge, or belief? 3. Whether the High Court has the jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the allegations made in the complaint, even if taken as true, did not constitute defamation against the petitioner. The court found that the petitioner's denial of the relationship between the complainant and her husband was made in the context of protecting an eviction order and that there was no defamatory intent, knowledge, or belief attributable to the petitioner. 2. The court held that the petitioner's denial of the relationship between the complainant and her husband was made in the context of protecting an eviction order and that there was no defamatory intent, knowledge, or belief attributable to the petitioner. 3. The court held that the High Court has the jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioner under Section 482 of the CrPC, as the allegations made in the complaint did not disclose any essential ingredients of an offence against the petitioner.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the complaint and criminal proceedings arising therefrom against the petitioner. The prayer of respondents 3 to 6 for quashing the proceedings was, however, declined.
( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code ) seeking quahing of criminal proceedings and the order dated 10th October, 1986 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. By the impugned order notice has been given to the petitioner and other accused under Section 251 of the Code holding that prima facie case is made out against the accused persons under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.
( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. I Dr. (M. .) Dhanwanti, is the complainant. She has filed a complaint dated 26th August 1981 against seven accused under Section 500, Indian Penal Code. Petitioner No. 1 Girish Kakkar has been arrayed as accused No. 6. Petitioner No. 2 Ram Saran Kakkar was arrayed as accued No. 7. Ram Saran Kakkar died during the pendency of the present petition. The allegations made in the complaint are briefly these :-
( 3 ) THE complainant is the legally wedded wife of Sh D. N. Waswani, who was arrayed as accused No. 1. D. N. Waswani died after filing of the complaint. The complainant along with her husband was living and cohabiting as such at cottage No. 4-A, First floor, West Paid Nagar. New Delhi. Accused No. I who was away to Hongkong on business trip arrived in India on 20th December 1980. The comnlainsnt went to receive him at Palam Airport and informed him that Girish Kakkar has taken possession of the premises referred above on false and frivolous representation. An application was filed by the complainant for setting aside the ex-parte order passed by Sh. Shiv Charan Gupta, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi on 1st August 1980. The omplainant has also moved various other applications for restitution of possession of the demised premises and the good taken illegally by Girish Kakkar. D. N. Waswani was admitted by complainant in Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital on 26th December, 1980 and he was kidnapped and removed by accused 2, 3. 4 and 5 from the said hospital on 3rd January, "981 and since then he is kept in illegal custody of accused No. 2 and 3 at 13. Bazar Lane, Bangali Market, New Delhi. In order to black mail, harass and defame the complainant accused No. 2 and 3 have made imputations both by signs and by visible representations as well as in writing that the complainant is not the wife of D. N. Waswani intending to harm and having reasons to believe that such imputations will harm the reputation of the complainant in the eyes and estimation of relatives, friends and associates of the complainant and in the eyes of general public. Similar imputations that the complainant is not the wife of D. N. Waswani were made by accused No. 2, 3, 4 and 5 in other proceedings the particulars of which have been given in the complaint. In regard to accused No. 6 and 7 only allegations made in the complaint are contained in para 14 which reads as under :-
"that the accused No. 6 and 7 has made written submissions in Kuldip Singh court denying the relationship of the complainant with the accused No. 1 thus defaming her"
( 4 ) ACCUSED No. 2, Smt. Kamla Chugani claims to be daughter of D. N. Waswanj. Accused No. 3 Gul Chugani, claims to be husband of Kamla Chugani and son-in-law of D. N. Waswani. Gul Chugani and Kamla Chugani are respondents 3 and 4 in this petition. Sheela Chaman, accused No. 4 and Baldev Chaman, accused No. 5 are said to be daughter and son-in-law of Kamla Chugani and Gul Chugani. Baldev Chaman and Sheela Chaman are respondents 5 and 6 respectively in this petition. Respondent No. 2 is the State.
( 5 ) THE accused were directed to be summoned for offence under section 500 I PC by order made by Metropolitan Magistrate on 24th July 1982. on coming to the conclusion that prima facie case is made against the accused persons. The order dated 24th July 1982 was challenged by respondents 3 to 6 and D. N. Waswani by filing a petition in this court (Cri. M. (M) 257184 ). Girish Kakkar and Ram Saran Kakkar arc not impleaded as parties in the said petition. That pet
