The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of mens rea in causing harm to the reputation of the person concerned for an offence of defamation under Section 499 IPC, and the necessity to examine the evidence at trial stage before quashing a criminal complaint.

M.L. MEHTA, J.

1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the Complaint under Section 500 IPC in Case No. 1832/1 and proceedings emanating thereof, pending before the Ld. M.M. The petitioner was summoned in the case on 09.03.2007 and the case is at the stage of post summoning evidence.

2. The complaint was filed against the petitioner by the respondent no. 2 who is his mother-in-law. The petitioner had filed a petition for divorce against his wife i.e. the daughter of respondent no.2. The said divorce case already stands dismissed. Allegedly in the rejoinder and additional submissions to the written statement filed by his wife in the divorce case, the petitioner had made some serious allegations about the character of the respondent no.2 and his wife.

3. The criminal complaint of defamation is sought to be quashed by the petitioner on the ground that the Ld. M.M. has not appreciated the facts of the case and the publication of the alleged defamatory statements made by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the pleadings made in all the cases are confidential and since the proceedings are held in camera, there was no question of the respondent no.2 and his wife being defamed. It is contended that the said criminal complaint has been filed by respondent no.2 against him as a counterblast to the divorce case filed by him.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the imputations made by the petitioner in his replication and additional submissions are an attack on the chastity of respondent no.2 and her daughter. It is further submitted that the allegations made by the petitioner are a direct attack on the entire family of respondent no.2 and is extremely damaging to the reputation of her family and are not only false and frivolous, but defamatory, libelous and derogatory. It was submitted that the order of Ld. M.M. was based on the material on record and statements of the witnesses and should not be interfered with.

5. I have heard leaned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent and perused the record.

6. The criminal law on defamation has been codified and is contained in section 499 to 502 of the Indian Penal Code. For an offence of defamation as defined under section 499 IPC, three essential ingredients are required, to be fulfilled as laid down in the case of Standard Chartered Bank v. Vinay Kumar Sood, 2010 CriL.J 1277:-

i. Making or publishing any imputation concerning any person;

ii. Such imputation must have been made by words either spoken or intended to be read or by signs or by visible representations.

iii. The said imputation must have been made with the intention to harm or with knowledge or having reason to believe that it will harm the reputation of the person concerned”.

7. Thus, it is clear that the mens rea to cause harm is the most essential sine qua non for an offence under section 499 IPC. To constitute “defamation” under Section 499 of the IPC, there must be an imputation and such imputation must have been made with intention of harming or knowing or having reason to believe that it will harm the reputation of the person about whom it is made. In essence, the offence of defamation is the harm caused to the reputation of a person. It would be sufficient to show that the accused intended or knew or had reason to believe that the imputation made by him would harm the reputation of the complainant, irrespective of whether the complainant actually suffered directly or indirectly from the imputation alleged. An offence punishable under section 500 IPC requires blameworthy mind and is not a statutory offence requiring no mens rea.

8. From the perusal of the replication and additional submissions made by the petitioner in the divorce proceedings, it is seen that the averments made by the petitioner were in fact highly defamatory and injurious to the image and reputation of the respondent no.2 and her daughter. There ar