Accusations made intending harm to reputation do not qualify for the good faith exception under defamation law; burden of proof lies on the accuser.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 14.08.2019 passed in Cr. Revision No.94 of 2019 by the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih whereby and where under the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih dismissed the criminal revision after finding that there is no infirmity or illegality in the order dated 28.03.2019 passed by the learned J.M.-1st Class, Giridih in Complaint Case No.340 of 2014 by which the learned J.M.-1st Class, Giridih has found prima facie case to constitute the offence punishable under Section 500 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE against the petitioner.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner made false imputations concerning the complainant, who is a doctor by profession and is a medical practitioner and also runs a clinic; intending to harm her reputation and knowing and having reason to believe the imputations on the complainant that she has removed one kidney of the petitioner while performing a surgery for removal of uterus of the petitioner, with the intention of selling the said kidney of the petitioner and when the petitioner went to the clinic of the complainant with the report, the complainant abused the petitioner and drove her out by pushing her.

4. On the basis of complaint, statement on solemn affirmation and statement of the enquiry witnesses, the learned J.M.-1st Class, Giridih found prima facie case to constitute the offence punishable under Section 500 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE against the petitioner. The said order was challenged before the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih in Cr. Revision No.94 of 2019 vide order dated 14.08.2019 and the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih after considering the materials in the record dismissed the same as already indicated above.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is false. The contention of the petitioner made in her report to the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih basing upon which an enquiry was setup by the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih and the same was published in the newspaper was true. It is next submitted that the act of the petitioner comes under the 8th exception of Section 499 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE which reads as under:-

Section 499 - Defamation

Eighth Exception.—Accusation preferred in good faith to authorised person—It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject-matter of accusation.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the accusations of the petitioner are in good faith and was made to a lawful authority with respect to the subject matter of the accusations, hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P, be allowed.

7. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P and submit that the petitioner deliberately made imputations in writing concerning the complainant intending to harm her reputation and also knowing and having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of the complainant by making baseless allegation that the complainant with intention to do the business of selling kidney has removed the left kidney of the petitioner, which is an absurdity, as kidney of a person is not a commodity which can be sold to anyone and in the absen