An FIR for defamation under IPC Section 500 is not maintainable unless filed by the aggrieved party, as clarified by pertinent Supreme Court rulings.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. 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 the prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Kanke P.S. Case No.210 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 500, 504 & 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the informant has submitted a written report to the Officer-in-charge of Kanke Police Station alleging therein that the petitioner being the leader of the BJP and the State President of BJP has made a statement that “The entire Family of my Leader are looters”. It is alleged that the said statement was made against the leaders of the informant namely Sibu Soren and Hemant Soren.

4. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant police registered Kanke P.S. Case No.210 of 2023 and took up investigation of the case.

5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the investigation of the case is still going on and charge sheet has not yet been submitted.

6. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case ofS. Khushboo vs. Kanniammal & Another, (2010) 5 SCC 600 and submits that in para-37 of that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated that in respect of the offence of defamation, Section 199 CrPC mandates that the Magistrate can take cognizance of the offence only upon receiving a complaint by a person who is aggrieved and this limitation on the power to take cognizance of defamation serves the rational purpose of discouraging the filing of frivolous complaints which would otherwise clog the Magistrate’s Court.

7. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner next submits that an FIR that too by a person other than the person aggrieved is not maintainable in respect of the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. In this respect, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case ofSubramanian Swamy vs. Union of India, Ministry of Law & Others, (2016) 7 SCC 221 and submits that in para-207 of which the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has in no uncertain manner held that Section 199 of CrPC envisages filing of a complaint in court. In case of criminal defamation neither can any FIR be filed nor can any direction be issued under Section 156(3) of CrPC, hence, it is submitted that FIR in respect of offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code is not maintainable.

8. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case ofArnab Ranjan Goswami vs. Union of India & Others, (2020) 14 SCC 12 and submits that in para-31 of the said judgement, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated that “there can be no second FIR” where the information concerns the same cognizable offence alleged in the first FIR for the same occurrence or incident which gives rise to one or more cognizable offences.

9. It is next submitted that in para-33 of that judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that barring situations in which a counter-case is filed, a fresh investigation or a second FIR on the basis of the same or connected cognizable offence would constitute an “abuse of the statutory power of investigation” and in para-36 of that judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has relied upon its own judgment in the case of Babubhai vs. Stat