Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 1413
High Court of Delhi
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
Pawan Kumar Kohli
Versus
Suesh Kumar Kohli & Another
CRL.A. No. 142 of 2006
Decided on : 20-05-2014
For the Appellant: in person.
For the Respondents:Kusum Dhalla, APP, R2, Inderjeet Sidhu, Advocate.
The essential ingredients of the offence of defamation and the exceptions under Section 499 of the IPC were central to the court's decision.
Headnote:
Defamation - IPC - Section 499, Section 500 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a complaint under Section 499 of the IPC against the respondent for defamatory language used in a complaint filed by the respondent. The trial court convicted the respondent, but the impugned judgment acquitted the respondent, leading to the present appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complaint was made in good faith and out of fear, without intent to harm the appellant's reputation. The background of inter se disputes over a common property was considered relevant.
Issues: The issues revolved around the defamatory nature of the language used in the complaint and the intent behind it, as well as the admissibility of evidence from a common relation of both parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The essential ingredients of the offence of defamation require an imputation made with the intention of harming or knowing it will harm the reputation of the person. The complaint made in good faith for protection of interests or for the public good is not defamation.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the impugned judgment acquitting the respondent did not suffer from any vice.
Indermeet Kaur, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 22.3.2004 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge which had set aside the order passed by the learned M.M. dated 31.7.2003. Learned M.M. on the complaint filed by the appellant (Pawan Kumar Kohli) under Section 499 of the IPC had convicted the respondent (Sudesh Kumar Kohli) and had held him guilty under Section 500 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo SI for a period of 6 months. The impugned judgment had reversed the order of the Magistrate and had acquitted the respondent. This judgment is the subject matter of the present appeal.
2. Record reveals that on 20.7.2003 a complaint had been filed by the respondent before the SHO of local police station West Patel Nagar wherein the gist of the complaint was that because of a dispute between the two cousins i.e. the appellant and the respondent relating to a property, the respondent was aggrieved by the acts of the appellant. The appellant (present in person) had pointed out the defamatory lines in the aforenoted complaint. They read as under:
(a) Yeh log badmash kism ke log hain.
(b) Yeh ladka aur iski maa bahut badchalan hai.
(c) In logo ki badmasho se santh-ganth hai.
(d) Ek makaan to hamara inhone badmasho ke sath mil kar harap liya hai upar se hamain pareshan kar ke niche ka makaan bhi hathiyana chahte hai.
3. It is argued that the language used in the complaint is per se defamatory and the impugned judgment relying upon Explanation 4 to Section 499 of the IPC; giving benefit to the respondent and thereby acquitting him of the charges leveled against him under Section 499 of the IPC has committed a grave illegality. The appellant has placed reliance upon a judgment of a Bench of this Court in 1982 Cri. L.J. 167 (Delhi) Shamsher Singh Vs. H.K.S. Malik, Additional District & Session Judge, Delhi ; another judgment of a Bench of the Patna High Court reported as 1965 (2) Crl. L.J. 693 (Vol.71, C.N. 226) Sardar Amar Singh Vs. K.S.Badalia. Reliance has also been placed upon a judgment of the Allahabad High Court reported as 29 Cr.L.J. 1928 Mohan Lal Vs. Ram Charan as also the judgment reported as 9 A. 420=7 A.W.N (1887) 39 Vol.1 Queen Empress Vs. McCarthy to support his argument that Explanation 4 to Section 499 of the IPC will not apply where the words used and form the basis of a charge are per se defamatory.
4. Needless to state that these arguments have been refuted by the learned counsel for the respondent. It is pointed out that the impugned judgment does not call for any interference as there was no intent on the part of the respondent to defame the appellant. It is pointed out that this intent has to be gathered from various circumstances and these have rightly been noted by the trial judge not to have been established; submission being that there was a gamut of inter se litigations pending between the two cousin brothers relating to their properties and it was in this background that the respondent bonafidely for the safety of his life and his family had made this complaint in the local police station which was only a private complaint; admittedly there was no public circulation of this document. Reliance has been placed upon AIR 1966 Orissa 15 (V 53 C 6) Dhruba Charan Khandal Vs. Dinabandu to support a submission that in this background there could be no defamation. Submission being that on count does the impugned judgment call for any interference.
5. Record has been perused.
6. Record reveals that complainant in support of his complaint examined two witnesses (CW-1 and CW-2) who had proved the complaint, the complaint was taken on record through secondary evidence. The complainant himself had come into witness box as CW-3. His testimony has been perused. While reiterating the complaint he in his cross-examination has admitted that that he came to know about this complaint when the police officials came to his house; he had gone to the police station where the respondent
