Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 95
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
R. Raghavan, Partner of Dinamalar Group, Dinamalar (RF) New Standard Press Annex, Trichy & Others - Appellant
Versus
Educomp Solutions Ltd, Through its Senior Manager Nithish Kumar & Others - Respondent
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos. 17560, 17562, 17561 & 17563 of 2016 & Crl.M.P(MD) Nos. 8732, 8733, 8730, 8731, 8733, 8734, 8723 & 8724 of 2016
Decided On : 19-03-2020
For the Petitioners:A.R.M. Ramesh, Advocate. For the Respondents:K. Muthumalai, Advocate.
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 482 – Quash - Incident - Petitioners herein are partners of group for publishing Tamil daily - Respondents are running education institute providing smart class rooms - News items in petitioners daily was published in their Madurai Edition and Erode Torchy Edition reporting order passed by Consumer Court against respondent wherein it is stated that respondents institution was directed to pay compensation and costs to four educational institutions for deficiency to service and mental agony caused to them for not providing service promised - Respondents have filed complaint Section alleging that news items has been published by petitioners herein without considering imputation being inflicted on them - Word fraud used in news item has caused imputation and injury to its reputation – Held, According to petitioners they have reported news only after thorough perusal of pleading and scrutiny of evidence - Hence they have used term fraud in their report with limited meaning for publication of news item since deceptive method adopted by complainant has been spoken in pleadings and evidence - Petitioners have employed word fraud used in common parlance - Therefore word fraud used in news items is not defamatory expression - It is also pointed out by petitioners that they have used said expression in good faith - It being reporting of court verdict it will not attract ingredients defamation - Having published court verdict in public interest with out with any ill motive or dies honest intention complaint against them has to be quashed - Heard counsel for petitioners - Counsel for respondents have withdrawn memo of appearance and memo is filed to that effect - Cumulative reading of order passed by District Consumer Redressed Forum in and news report which is scrutiny in this petition this Court finds that word fraud has been employed in news report since consumer forum has that respondent company after promising to provide smart class to students by employing teachers have failed to employ teachers thereby cause monetary loss to concerned institute and also mental agony to them - Holistic reading of news report and caption given to news item word fraud has been used to catch eyes of reader - Petitioners have employed word fraud - Since fact of case warrants to use it - Complaint alleges news report and caption attracts ingredients for ordinary dictionary meaning for fraud - Petitioners are editors and publishers of reputed news paper - There is no element of malice or ulterior motive report anything defamatory - Word fraud as defined in cannot be found present in case reported - However word fraud is used by petitioners for common man understanding - Reporting verdict of consumer forum cannot be construed as defamatory expression causing repute to respondents – Petitions allowed
Key Points: - The petitions sought to quash proceedings in C.C. Nos. 147 and 148 of 2016 under Cr.P.C. 482. (!) - The court held that the word "fraud" used in the news report, in the context of reporting a consumer forum verdict, was used in common parlance and that there was no malice or ulterior motive, thus not constituting defamation; petition allowed and proceedings quashed. (!) (!) (!) - The news report described the consumer forum order directing compensation and costs to four educational institutions for deficiency in service and mental agony. (!) (!) - The court emphasized bonafide reporting of court verdicts in the public interest and cautioned against repetition of the incident. (!) (!) - Respondents’ complaint alleged defamation due to publication of alleged imputation by using the word "fraud"; the petitioners argued they perused pleadings and evidence before reporting. (!) (!) - The court noted there was no malice or ulterior motive in reporting; reporters are editors/publishers of a reputed newspaper. (!) - The petitioners’ use of "fraud" was deemed to be for the common man understanding and not a defamatory expression, given the context of the consumer forum verdict. (!) (!) - The proceedings were quashed; connected miscellaneous petitions were closed. (!) - The court directed petitioners to be cautious in using the word "fraud" in future reporting. (!) - The record shows the complaint was initiated on the basis of alleged defamation arising from news items published on specific dates reporting the consumer forum order. (!) (!)
How to quash defamation complaints arising from news reporting of a court verdict under Cr.P.C. sections 191A and 200?
What is the test to determine whether use of the word "fraud" in news reporting constitutes defamation or bona fide reporting of court proceedings?
What are the rights of editors/publishers to report court verdicts in the public interest without defaming respondents?
JUDGMENT
(Common Prayer: Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings in C.C.Nos.147 and 148 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai and quash the same.)
Common Order
1. These petitions have been filed to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings in C.C.Nos.147 and 148 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai and quash the same.
2. The learned counsel for the respondents filed memo stating that he is withdrawing the memo of appearance filed on behalf of the respondents stating that the respondents have gone out of contact and unable to communicate.
3. The petitioners herein are the partners of Dinamalar group for publishing Tamil daily. The respondents are running a education institute providing smart class rooms. The news items in the petitioners daily was published in their Madurai Edition on 15.07.2015 and Erode, Tirchy Ediction on 19.07.2015 reporting the order passed by the Consumer Court against the respondent wherein it is stated that the respondents institution was directed to pay compensation of Rs.50000/- and costs of Rs.5000/- to the four educational institutions for deficiency to the service and mental agony caused to them for not providing service promised.
4. The respondents have filed a complaint under Section 191(A) and 200 Cr.P.C alleging that the news items has been published by the petitioners herein without considering the imputation being inflicted on them. The word 'fraud' used in the news item has caused imputation and injury to its reputation. The said complaint for defamation was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai in C.C. Nos. 147 and 148 of 2016 and the summons were caused. Hence the present petitions to quash the complaint.
5. Reading of the complaint this Court finds that while reporting the judgment of the consumer forum the petitioners have used the word 'fraud' which according to the respondents is objectionable and defamatory expression. According to the respondents, the complaint against them was breach of contract and deficiency of service. Complaint itself was a motivated one just to avoid and evade payment of contractual money. Whileso, reporting the exparte order of the consumer court but the petitioners herein without verification by unwarrantedly and unnecessarily employing the word 'fraud' had caused damage to their reputation.
6. According to the petitioners they have reported news only after thorough perusal of the pleading and scrutiny of the evidence. Hence they have used the term 'fraud' in their report with the limited meaning for the publication of the news item, since the deceptive method adopted by the complainant has been spoken in the pleadings and evidence. The petitioners have employed the word 'fraud' used in common parlance. Therefore the word 'fraud' used in the news items is not a defamatory expression. It is also pointed out by the petitioners that they have used the said expression in good fait. It being a bonafide reporting of the court verdict it will not attract the ingredients of defamation. Having published the court verdict in the public interest with out with any ill motive or dis-honest intention the complaint against them has to be quashed.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The counsel for the respondents have withdrawn the memo of appearance and a memo is filed to that effect.
8. A cumulative reading of the order passed by the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Virudhunagar in C.C. No.02 of 2015 dated 13.07.2015 and the news report which is under scrutiny in this petition, this Court finds that the word 'fraud' has been employed in the news report since the consumer forum has held that the respondent company after promising to provide smart class to the students by employing teachers have failed to employ teachers, thereby cause monetary loss to the concerned institute and also mental
