Back
2007 Supreme(Gau) 816
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Amitava Roy, J.
H.R.A. Choudhury
Vs.
Rockybul Hussain
Decided On : 14.12.2007
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the initiation of a criminal proceeding based on contingent, hypothetical, and anticipatory evidence would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.
Headnote:
Defamation - Criminal Proceeding - Indian Penal Code (IPC) Section 500/501 - The court discussed the validity of the criminal proceeding under Section 500/501 of the IPC and the impugned order dated 29.06.2007, which was in assailment in the instant petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was alleged to have published a news item containing defamatory statements against the opposite party, a Minister in the Assam Cabinet. The opposite party filed a complaint alleging defamation and the learned trial Court issued process against the petitioner and another individual, leading to the petitioner's challenge of the criminal proceeding and the impugned order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the news item had not been proved in accordance with the law and could not be considered as admissible evidence. It concluded that there was no direct evidence to establish the petitioner's involvement in the alleged defamation, and the initiation of the criminal proceeding would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the criminal proceeding, the admissibility of the news item as evidence, and the sufficiency of evidence to establish the offence of defamation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the news item had not been proved in accordance with the law and could not be considered as admissible evidence. It emphasized that the purpose of the examination of the complainant and his witnesses under Section 200 Cr.P.C. was to derive an unreserved satisfaction about the justifiability to proceed with the prosecution.
Final Decision: The petition succeeded, and the impugned criminal proceeding and the order dated 29.06.2007, so far it relates to the petitioner, were quashed.
Amitava Roy, J.
1. The maintainability of the criminal proceeding being CR Case No. 1715/2007, under Section500/501, Part-II of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code'), pending in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaon and the tenability of the impugned order dated 29.06.2007, passed therein, is in assailment in the instant petition.
2. I have heard Mr. J.M. Choudhury, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. B.M. Choudhury, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. D. Saikia, Advocate for the opposite party.
3. The petition before this Court discloses that the opposite party has filed a complaint against the petitioner as well as the Executive Director and Chief Editor of the daily "Asomiya Khabar", named therein together with Shri Mayur Talukdar, Printer, Frontier Publication Ltd., Guwahati, in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaon, alleging that they had committed an offence under the aforementioned Sections of law by publishing a news item titled as "Congress has misled ULFA" in the issue dated 29.06.2007, of the said daily, containing the following statement made by the petitioner:
The AUDF has brought a serious allegation that behind ULFA's threat to Badaruddin Azmal to quit Assam within the time fixed, Forest Minister Rockybul Hussain has a hand.
4. The opposite party alleged in the complaint that because of the news item with the above statement made by the petitioner, his dignity and reputation has suffered in the estimation of the public. It has been asserted that after the said publication, the opposite party's acquaintances and well-wishers also confronted him therewith seeking clarifications to his great embarrassment. The opposite party averred that he is a Minister in the Assam Cabinet, presently in power and that the news item has thoroughly marred his otherwise clean image as a public figure. While denying any association with the ULFA, either in public or individual life, the opposite party has alleged that the publication has been engineered by the petitioner for his political gain by making false statements. The opposite party, however, mentioned that though, the complaint had been filed also against three other persons, no process need be issued against them.
The learned trial Court on receipt of the complaint, examined the opposite party-complainant and his two other witnesses Shri Pradip Hazarika and Shri Abhij it Saikia, on oath, under Section 200/202, of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereafter referred to as the 'Code') and, thereafter, by the impugned order dated 29.06.2007, issued process against the petitioner and one Shri Dadu Tai under Section500/501 Part-II of the IPC. Thereby, summons were ordered to be issued to them, fixing 07.08.2007, for their appearance.
5. The petitioner while denying that he had involved the opposite party-complainant in person in course of the deliberations in the press conference as alleged, has impugned the initiation of the criminal proceeding, purported cognizance of the alleged offence and the impugned order issuing the process, as patently illegal resulting in abuse of the process of Court. The petitioner has asserted that the complaint is a yield of the misuse of the opposite part's authority as a Minister of the Government in power only to harass, malign and wreak personal and political vendetta against him under the cover of law. He has further impeached the impugned order to be violative of Section 190of the Code and passed without any application of mind. According to him, Shri Dadu Tai, neither being named in the complaint nor alleged to be involved in the offence mentioned therein, no process could have been issued against him at this stage, and on that count as well, the impugned order is invalid in law. As the continuance of the criminal proceedings, would in the facts and circumstances of the case, an abuse of the process of law, the same ought to be quashed.
6. The opposite party in his affidavit, while plea
