IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J. C. DOSHI, J.
Jiteshbhai Maganbhai Ukani & Ors. – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat & Anr. – Respondent
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 20614 of 2018
Decided on : 18-09-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition filed under crpc section 482. (Para 1) |
| 2. outline of the complainant's admission and subsequent events. (Para 2) |
| 3. petitioners' arguments regarding defamation and truth. (Para 3) |
| 4. respondent's defense highlighting complainant's actions. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 5. court observation on law of defamation. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 19) |
| 6. applicability of ipc exceptions in defamation. (Para 18 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 7. court's final decision to quash proceedings. (Para 23) |
JUDGMENT :
J. C. DOSHI, J.
1. It is a petition filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short “the Code”), whereby the petitioners having been arraigned as accused in Criminal Case No.152 of 2017 challenges issuance of process by the learned CJM, Rajkot for the offences punishable u/s 500 of the IPC .
2. The fact which outlined the dispute between the parties and leading to filing up the present petition, are as under:-
2.1 The complainant got admission of his son in the school of the petitioners in June-2015 by paying six months fee of the first semester by cheque.
2.2 That on 08/08/2015, the complainant was called by the school and told to deposit the advance cheque of the second semester fee. Upon asking for explanation of advance cheque, no satisfactory reply was given by the petitioners and in turn, the complainant was asked to withdraw the admission. Even, the petitioners denied to give it in writing.
2.3 That on 01/09/2015, the complainant was called in person by the accused no.3 and accused no.2 and 3 again demanded the advance cheque, or to withdraw the admission and on 02/09/2015, the complainant was informed by the letter that his son’s admission is canceled. In pursuance thereof, Leaving Certificate of complainant’s son was sent through Reg.A.D. on 16/09/2015, which the complainant received on 18/09/2015.
2.4 Therefore, the complainant gave complaint to the District Education Officer on 03/09/2015 and the said complaint was heard on 01/10/2015 and the District Education Officer passed an order in favour of the complainant on 03/10/2015. The complainant has also given a written application to the Malaviyanagar Police Station also on 18/09/2015.
2.5 Upon the aforestated order, the Administrator and Principal of the school started subjecting to mental harassment to complainant’s son and he was made sit aloof from his class and he was deprived of his study and therefore, the complainant had given statement in Mota Mava Chowkey of Malaviyanagar Police Station on 05/10/2015.
2.6 Thereafter, a complaint was filed against the complainant in the beginning of October-2015 and in context of the said complaint, Mr. Jadeja, ASI of Malaviyanagar and other police staff Ashokbhai Kalak came to complainant’s office situated at Jalaram-2 on 08/10/2015 and the complainant was taken in to the said car and produced before the PI of Malaviyanagar Police Station and thereafter, the complainant was arrested there. Next day, the complainant was produced in the Mamlatdar Office (South) near P.D. Malaviya College and thereafter, the complainant was released on bail.
2.7 Bearing grudge towards the above entire incident, on 13/10/2015, the school, the school administrator and the Principal sent a pamphlet with complainant’s son alongwith a two-lined letter without addressing the date or name and on the same day, a notice was published in the newspapers ‘Sandesh’ and Divya Bhaskar’, and on 14/10/2015 in newspaper ‘Sanjh Samachar’ and on 16/10/2015 in newspaper ‘Gujarat Samachar’ and in the said notice, it was mentioned about complainant’s character and used defamatory language and therefore, the complainant filed aforestated Criminal Case. In which, the learned trial Court has issued process against the petitioners.
2.8 Hence, present petition.
3. Learned senior advocate Mr. Anshin Desai assisted by learned advocate, Mr. Nandish Thackar for the petitioners. would submit that issuance of process by the learned CJM for the offence pun



Public notices claiming defamation must demonstrate intent to harm reputation; truth for public good is a valid defense.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of exception 8 to Section 499 of the IPC, emphasizing the need for good faith and lawful authority in making accusations and the....
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....
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.
Publication of true facts in a Senate meeting does not constitute defamation unless there is intent to harm the reputation of the individual.
Court must prevent unjust legal proceedings; defamation requires intention to harm, not met as the news article was factual.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.