Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
KALYAN RAI SURANA, J.
Manish Sisodia - Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam - Respondent
Crl. Pet. No. 984 of 2022
Decided on : 04-11-2022
CRIMINAL PETITION - QUASHING OF PROCEEDINGS - DEFAMATION - [SECTION 499/500 IPC] - PRESS CONFERENCE - STATEMENTS MADE BY PETITIONER - COMPLAINT FILED BY RESPONDENT - COGNIZANCE TAKEN BY TRIAL COURT - PETITIONER'S CONTENTIONS - SANCTION UNDER SECTION 197 CRPC - EXCEPTION TO DEFAMATION - REPRODUCTION OF MATERIALS AVAILABLE IN INTERNET - QUASHING OF COMPLAINT PETITION - COURT'S ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, Deputy Chief Minister of NCT of Delhi, held a press conference under the banner of Aam Aadmi Party and made statements alleging corruption by the respondent, who was then the Health Minister of Assam. The respondent filed a complaint petition for defamation under Section 499/500 IPC. The trial court took cognizance of the offence and issued summons to the petitioner. The petitioner filed a criminal petition seeking to quash the proceedings on various grounds, including lack of sanction under Section 197 CrPC, applicability of Section 199(2) CrPC, and reproduction of materials already available in the internet.
Finding of the Court:
1. No prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC was required as the petitioner was not performing a public duty or carrying out his prescribed duty as a Government servant to hold a press conference and make statements about the respondent's alleged corrupt practices. 2. The respondent's complaint as a private person was rightly entertained as Section 199(2) CrPC is not in derogation of any other provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the contents of his press conference were a replica of the contents of "The Wire" and "The Cross Current", or that he did not add any "sugar and spice" or sensationalize the contents. 4. The petitioner did not take care to cross-check facts before making remarks against the respondent and his wife, despite the respondent's clarification on social media. 5. The petitioner's statements in the press conference were not merely questions, and the cases cited by him did not lay down the law that reckless reproduction of defamatory articles without verifying their correctness would not amount to defamation.
Issues: 1. Whether prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC was required for prosecuting the petitioner. 2. Whether the respondent's complaint as a private person was maintainable in view of Section 199(2) CrPC. 3. Whether the petitioner's statements in the press conference were protected by the exceptions to defamation under Section 499 IPC. 4. Whether the petitioner's reproduction of materials available in the internet negated the defamatory nature of his statements. 5. Whether the complaint petition and the order taking cognizance of the offence were liable to be quashed.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The requirement of prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC applies only to public servants accused of offences committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of their official duties. In this case, the petitioner was not performing a public duty or carrying out his prescribed duty as a Government servant when he made the alleged defamatory statements. 2. Section 199(2) CrPC empowers the Court of Session to take cognizance of offences under Chapter XXI of the IPC, including defamation, upon a complaint in writing made by the Public Prosecutor. This provision is not in derogation of the right of the aggrieved person to make a complaint before a Magistrate. Therefore, the respondent's complaint as a private person was maintainable. 3. The exceptions to defamation under Section 499 IPC, such as truth, public good, and fair comment, were not applicable in this case. The petitioner failed to demonstrate that his statements were true, made for the public good, or constituted fair comment on the respondent's conduct. 4. The mere reproduction of materials available in the internet does not negate the defamatory nature of a statement. The petitioner failed to show that his statements in the press conference were a mere repetition of the contents of "The Wire" and "The Cross Current", and that he did not add any additional defamatory remarks. 5. The complaint petition and the order taking cognizance of the offence were not liable to be quashed as there were sufficient materials on record to proceed with the trial.
Final Decision: The petition to quash the proceedings of the defamation case against the petitioner was dismissed. The respondent was permitted to produce a certified copy of the order before the trial court to make it a part of the record.
JUDGMENT :
KALYAN RAI SURANA, J.
Heard Mr. A.K. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Phukan, learned P.P. appearing for the State respondent no.1 and Mr. D. Saikia, learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms. R. Baruah, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2.
2. By filing this criminal petition under sec. 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner, namely, Manish Sisodia, has prayed for quashing of the proceedings of C.R. Case No. 81/2022 under Sec. 499/500 IPC, which is pending for disposal before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati.
3. Bereft of unnecessary details, it would suffice to mention the herein before complaint petition was filed by the respondent no.2, namely, Dr. Himanta Biswa Sarma, who is the present Chief Minister of the State of Assam. In the complaint petition it was alleged that on 4/6/2022, the petitioner had addressed a press conference at New Delhi where defamatory statement was made against the respondent no. 2, accusing him of indulging in corruption. The video of the said press conference was uploaded in you-tube channel of Aam Aadmi Party, with caption - "Assam ke BJP CM ke bhrastachar ka yeh hai kacha chittha." It would suffice to mention that in the complaint petition, it was stated, amongst others, that the allegations against the respondent no. 2 was to the effect that the respondent no. 2 was involved in corruption; he had given Government contract to his wife's Company for purchasing PPE kits; while purchase from others were made at Rs.600.00 per kit, such kits were purchased from the Company of the wife of the respondent no. 2 at the rate of Rs.990.00 per PPE kit.
4. The learned Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M), Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as the "trial Court"), after considering the statement of the respondent no. 2, recorded under Sec. 200 Cr.P.C., and the statement of 2 (two) witnesses examined under Sec. 202 Cr.P.C., by order dtd. 20/8/2022, found sufficient ground to proceed against the petitioner under Sec. 499/500 Cr.P.C. and on taking cognizance of the offence, was pleased to issue summons to the petitioner for appearance in the proceeding.
Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner :
5. The submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are three-fold. Firstly, it was submitted that the petitioner was the Deputy Chief Minister of the State of NCT of Delhi and accordingly, although he was a public servant, no sanction was obtained as per the requirement of Sec. 197 Cr.P.C. to prosecute him. Secondly, it was also submitted that the statement made by the petitioner in the press-conference held on 4/6/2022 at Delhi falls within the "exceptions" contained in Sec. 499 of the I.P.C., as because it was for public good and to caution the public. Thirdly, it was submitted that the supply of PPE kits was made at the exorbitant rate of 990/- per PPE kits, while similar PPE kits were purchased by the Government at the rate of Rs.600.00 per PPE kits. The learned counsel had also submitted that even assuming but not admitting that PPE kits were given without raising bills, but they took the benefit under "Corporate Social Responsibility Fund" and therefore, the respondent no. 2, though the Company of his wife had caused undue enrichment to themselves. Fourthly, it was submitted that in the press conference, the petitioner had merely reproduced those materials which were available in the internet as published by web/news-portals under the name of "The Wire" and "The Cross Current". However, while the respondent no. 2 did not suffer any defamation by these web/news-portals, the petitioner has been proceeded with. Thus, it was submitted that the true reproduction of materials already available in the internet cannot amount to defamation.
6. Although many grounds has been set forth in this criminal petition, but no other point was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. In support of his submissions, the learned couns
The requirement of prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC applies only to public servants accused of offences committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of their official duties. The....
A lack of governmental consent under Section 196(2) Cr.P.C. does not bar prosecution for defamation offences, emphasizing the media's role in reporting on public matters.
(1) Defamation – ”BJP” is a determinate and identifiable body and complaint for defamation under Section 500 IPC is maintainable.(2) Defamation – Right of a person against whom offence of defamation ....
News alleging public servant corruption not defamatory if in good faith for public good, based on withheld information about public funds, with prior civil suit dismissal on same facts attaining fina....
Sanction for prosecuting a public servant is not required at the initial stage if the alleged offense is not inseparably linked to official duty. Furthermore, a magistrate satisfies the statutory req....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
