Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.
Rahul Gandhi, S/o. late Rajiv Gandhi - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand, Anr. - Opposite Parties
Cr.M.P. No. 152 of 2020
Decided On : 05-07-2022
The court dismissed the petition challenging the cognizance taken by the trial court in a defamation case. The court held that the petitioner failed to establish that the complainant was not an aggrieved person within the meaning of Section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The court also held that the petitioner failed to show that the ingredients of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) were not made out.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a politician, made certain statements in a public rally that were alleged to be defamatory to the Modi community. A complaint was filed against the petitioner under Section 500 of the IPC, and the trial court took cognizance of the complaint. The petitioner filed a petition challenging the cognizance taken by the trial court.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the complainant was an aggrieved person within the meaning of Section 199 of the CrPC. The court also held that the ingredients of Section 499 of the IPC were made out. The court further held that the petitioner failed to show that the trial court had erred in taking cognizance of the complaint.
Issues: 1. Whether the complainant was an aggrieved person within the meaning of Section 199 of the CrPC? 2. Whether the ingredients of Section 499 of the IPC were made out? 3. Whether the trial court erred in taking cognizance of the complaint?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the complainant was an aggrieved person within the meaning of Section 199 of the CrPC because the petitioner's statements were defamatory to the Modi community, of which the complainant was a member. 2. The court held that the ingredients of Section 499 of the IPC were made out because the petitioner's statements were made with the intention of harming the reputation of the Modi community. 3. The court held that the trial court did not err in taking cognizance of the complaint because there was sufficient evidence to support the allegations made in the complaint.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition challenging the cognizance taken by the trial court.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.2 and Mr. Saket Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent State.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 07.06.2019 passed in connection with Complaint Case No.1993 of 2019 whereby cognizance under section 500 of the I.P.C has been taken and pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi.
3. The complaint case was filed by the O.P.No.2 alleging therein that :
That the great grandfather of the complainant Seth Bhimraj Modi migrated to the town of Ranchi from Mandawa in Rajasthan in the year 1868 and established a business empire in the field of textile, banking, money lending etc. His younger brother, Bhuramal Modi also joined him in Ranchi and they established firm “Bhimraj Bhuramal”. Today in Ranchi there are more than 80 families of both brothers besides in other parts of India and abroad. Others families belonging to different branches of Modi clan migrated to Ranchi more than 100 years ago from Rajasthan. There is sizeable population of persons having Modi surname in Ranchi;
That late Bansidhar Modi, grandfather of the complainant carried forward the business established by his father with help of his younger brothers namely Nagarmal, Shiv Narain and Panna Lal Modi and took it to greater height. Modi family has very high and impeccable reputation and integrity in the society. They also run a number of charitable institutions in the city of Ranchi since several decades;
That the accused Rahul Gandhi is the National President of Indian National Congress Party having its office at 24, Akbar Road, New Delhi. He is also a member of Lok Sabha;
That during freedom movement in early 1920s, Nagarmal Modi and Shivnarain Modi were active member of Congress party and leaders like Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Rajendra Prasad and others were honoured guests in Modi House. Shivnarain Modi permitted the congress party to build its Ranchi office at Shharadhanand Road on the land belonging to him which is known as Congress Bhawan from where Congress party function in Ranchi;
That the accused being President of Indian National Congress is involved in electioneering for 2019 Parliament Election to be held during months of April and May, 2019;
That on Saturday 02.03.2019, Rahul Gandhi was speaker in Parivartan Ulgulan Rally organized by his party. During his address in the rally accused uttered following words:
^^vc pkj lky ls vPNs fnu vk;saxs dk ukjk cny dj pkSdhnkj pksj gks x;kA ,d pkSdhnkj us lkjs pkSdhnkjksa dks cnuke dj fn;k] vc pkSdhnkj Hkh ukjk cnyus dks dg jgs gSA eSa Li"V dj nsrk gw¡ fd ns’k dk pkSdhnkj pksj gSA vkius uhjo eksnh] yfyr eksnh ds ckjs esa lquk gSA uhjo eksnh dks ujsUnz HkkbZ dgrs gSaA vkf[kj lkjs eksnh pksj D;ksa gSaA^^
That the above speech of Rahul Gandhi in Ranchi rally is available in you-tube.com http://you tu.be/SH46YBy3ohY. The total duration of speech is 26.41 minutes and the offensive partition quoted above is from 16.16 minutes to 17.15 minutes;
That all local news paper of Ranchi published the offensive portion of speech of Rahul Gandhi in their morning edition on 03.03.2019. Prabhat Khabar published offensive portion in box in front page deleting word ‘Chor’ and instead printed ..... in its place Another prominent paper Hindustan highlighted offensive portion on front page in box in its 03.03.2019 edition;
That the complainant started receiving phone calls from his family members since evening of 02.03.2019 when the utterance of the accused became viral. The complainant in order to satisfy himself minutely heard the entire speech on you tube and also read offensive portion of speech in newspaper
(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 ....
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
