Filing an FIR does not constitute defamation unless it is shown to harm the complainant's reputation, which must be substantiated by evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. B.M. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.None appears for the respondent No. 2 when the matter is called.

2. Pertinent that by Order dated 13.02.2019, this Court deems service to be completed against the respondent No. 2. However, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent No. 2, despite receipt of notice till date.

3. This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.PC seeking quashing of the Order dated 30.12.2015 passed by the learned Addl. Session Judge, FTC, Nagaon (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Revisional Court’) in C.M No. 13(N)/2015, whereby the Criminal Revision Petiton filed under Section 397/399 of Cr.PC against the Order dated 04.02.2015 passed by the learned SDJM, Sadar, Nagaon (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Magistrate Court’) in C.R. Case No. 1052/2014, whereby the Magistrate Court was pleased to decline issuance of process against the accused person under Section 500 of IPC.

4. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner, who is a Govt. Servant working as L.D.Assistant in the office of Juria Development Block and Anchalik Panchayat situated at Dagaon in the District of Nagaon, Assam filed a complaint being C.R. Case No. 1052/2014 on 14.10.2014 before the Magistrate Court against the respondent No. 2, alleging inter alia that since the wife of the petitioner lodged an ejahar against the maternal aunt of the accused, which was registered as Rupahihat P.S. Case No. 286/2014 under Sections 447/323/294 of IPC, out of grudge, the accused No. 2 with malafide intention with the intention to criminally defame and deceive the image of the petitioner before the public, lodged an FIR being Rupahihat P.S. Case No. 287/2014 under Sections 147/148/325/307 IPC against the petitioner.

5. Thereafter, the Magistrate Court, upon perusing the complaint petition and the statements of the complainant and the witnesses was of the opinion that no criminal case is made out against the respondent No. 2 and accordingly, vide Judgment & Order dated 04.02.2015, the complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Magistrate Court dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner, the petitioner filed a Revision Petition under Sections 397/399/401 Cr.PC before the Revisional Court, wherein the Revisional Court after an elaborate consideration of the materials available on record and the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the contending parties was pleased to hold by Order dated 30.12.2015 that there is no irregularity or illegality committed by the Magistrate Court in dismissing the complaint and accordingly, dismissed the Revision Petition.

7. Against the said dismissal of the Revision Petition by the Revisional Court, the instant Criminal Petition has been filed seeking quashing of the said order of the Revisional Court.

8. Mr. B.M. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the FIR filed by the respondent No. 2 against the petitioner, the Police authority upon finding no materials against the petitioner submitted final closure report against the petitioner. Hence, it is apparent that the allegations are false and merely set out against the petitioner in order to tarnish his image. He accordingly submits that a clear case of criminal defamation is made out on the body of the averments set out in the complaint and hence, the order of the Revisional Court in dismissing the order of the Magistrate Court in dismissing the complaint is totally perverse and bad in law and warrants interference from this Court, while exercising quashing jurisdiction.

9. Per contra, Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondent submits that mere filing of an FIR automatically cannot constitute a criminal defamation against the informant. He further submits that there is no whisper as regards the respondent No. 2 having publish