Statements made in a courtroom context need specific imputation to constitute defamation; absence of such leads to dismissal of charges under IPC without requisite sanction for prosecution of public servants.

1. The Petitioner has filed this criminal revision challenging the order dated 06.12.2023 passed by the learned S.D.J.M. Malkangiri, in l.C.C. Case No.20 of 2023, rejecting the application for discharge under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. for commission of offences under Section(s) 500/506 of I.P.C.

I. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:

2. The prosecution's case can be summarized as follows:

(i). On 05.08.2003, at approximately 11:30 am, Gobinda Patra ("the complainant"), an Advocate affiliated with the local bar, appeared before the SDM ("the petitioner") to argue his case. During the course of the proceedings, the petitioner/accused requested the presentation of evidence from the second party, a proposition to engage a different advocate instead of the complainant, assuring a favorable outcome in return. Furthermore, the accused/petitioner allegedly threatened the complainant, prohibiting their presence in the courtroom and instructing the Clerk not to grant the complainant access.

(ii). The complainant expressed dissent and took a seat. Additionally, the accused/petitioner being the Presiding Officer of the SDM court instructed the complainant to leave the courtroom. According to the complaint, the accused/petitioner directed the involved party to engage a different advocate instead of the complainant, assuring a favorable outcome in return. Furthermore, the accused/petitioner allegedly threatened the complainant, prohibiting their presence in the courtroom and instructing the Clerk not to grant the complainant access.

(iii). The S.D.J.M., Malkangiri took cognizance of offences under Section 500 /506 I.P.C. Later, the S.D.J.M rejected the discharge petition dated 16.08.2023 and posted the case to 20.12.2023 for framing of charge.

II. REVISIONIST'S ARGUMENT:

3. The counsel for the revisionist urged the following submissions:

(i). The accusations presented in the complaint petition are unequivocally untrue and concocted, driven by a personal vendetta against the petitioner.

(ii). The baseless, frivolous nature of the allegations is refuted, emphasizing that at no point has there been any utterance intended to tarnish the complainant's prestige or status, nor has there been any instance of defamation or abuse directed at the complainant.

(iii). On basis of such allegation, the cognizance of offence has been illegally taken by the S.D.J.M. Malkangiri without considering the materials from its proper perspective and by erroneously not rejecting the complaint petition sans the pre-requisite of sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C.

(iv). The complainant, an Advocate and Officer of the Court, disrupted proceedings during the petitioner's lawful role as Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM). Operating within the legal capacity of SDM as specified under Section 20(4) Cr.P.C., the petitioner, who was also the Sub-Collector, held court and discharged official duties on 05.08.2003, in Malkangiri. It is evident that, if any incident occurred, it transpired during a case hearing and while fulfilling official duties as SDM in Malkangiri, it was within legal boundary.

(v). Section 197 of the Cr.P.C explicitly states that no court shall take cognizance of offenses allegedly committed while discharging official duties without proper sanction. This safeguard of sanctio