Back
1993 Supreme(P&H) 278
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
A.S. Nehra, J.
Harkishan Lal Chopra - Petitioner
Versus
Hans Raj - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 715 of 1992.
Decided On : 29 April, 1993
For the Petitioner:Mr. P.N. Arora, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Sudeep Mahajan, Advocate.
The court clarified the scope and applicability of Section 195 of the CrPC, Section 182 of the IPC, and the ninth exception to Section 499 of the IPC in the context of defamation complaints.
Headnote:
DEFAMATION - SECTION 500 IPC - SECTION 195 CRPC - SECTION 182 IPC - SECTION 499 IPC - EXCEPTION 9 - GOOD FAITH - PUBLIC INTEREST - INQUIRY - DUE CARE AND ATTENTION - COGNIZANCE OF OFFENCE - MAINTAINABILITY OF COMPLAINT - APPLICABILITY OF EXCEPTIONS - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner filed a complaint to the Senior Superintendent of Police alleging that the respondent was running a brothel and harboring terrorists. The respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for defamation. The petitioner challenged the maintainability of the complaint, arguing that it was barred by Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and that the petitioner's complaint was protected by the ninth exception to Section 499 of the IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the complaint filed by the respondent was maintainable and that Section 195 of the CrPC was not a bar to the cognizance of the offense. The court further held that Section 182 of the IPC was also no bar to the complaint filed by the respondent, as it was a different offense from Section 500 of the IPC. The court found that the allegations leveled by the petitioner prima facie constituted the offense under Section 500 of the IPC and that there was no reason why the offense should not be taken cognizance of on a complaint filed by the aggrieved person.
Issues: 1. Whether the complaint filed by the respondent was maintainable in light of Section 195 of the CrPC? 2. Whether the petitioner's complaint was protected by the ninth exception to Section 499 of the IPC? 3. Whether Section 182 of the IPC was a bar to the complaint filed by the respondent?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 195 of the CrPC does not bar the cognizance of an offense if the facts alleged prima facie constitute the offense. 2. The ninth exception to Section 499 of the IPC protects imputations made in good faith for the protection of the interest of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good. 3. Section 182 of the IPC is a different offense from Section 500 of the IPC and therefore does not bar a complaint filed under Section 500 of the IPC.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's revision petition, holding that the complaint filed by the respondent was maintainable and that there was no merit in the petitioner's arguments.
A.S. Nehra, J. - This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 31st August, 1992 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patiala, by which the application of petition for dismissing the complaint filed by the respondent under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the complaint filed by respondent is liable to be dismissed because in case the complaint made by the petitioner to Shri S.K. Sharma, Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala, is found false, then the petitioner can be tried under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the complaint filed by the petitioner, the Court cannot take cognizance of the offence in view of the provisions of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. It has been further contended that a plain reading of complaint made by the petitioner to Shri S.K. Sharma Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala, is to protect the interest of daughter of the petitioner and this imputation was made in good faith and the case of the petitioner is covered by Ninth exception to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. In support of this arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Anil Kumar Chopra v. M.K. Khosla, 1989(1) Chandigarh Law Reporter 655.
5. Mr. Sudeep Mahajan, Advocate, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that mere fact that the allegations constituting an offence of defamation are contained in a petition to a public servant or a Court, is per se no ground for holding that section 195, Criminal Procedure Code, is a bar to the cognizance of the offence. He further submitted that the question whether the facts placed in the complaint really constitute an offence falling within the provisions of section 95, Criminal Procedure Code, or not must depend upon the circumstances of each case. The learned counsel further submitted that if the facts alleged, prima facie constitute the offence under section 500, Indian Penal Code, there is no reason why that offence should not, be taken cognizance of on a complaint filed by the aggrieved person.
6. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon Baldev Raj v. Kesar Das and others, 1973 Chandigarh Law Reporter 486 and Chanan Singh and others v. Tarak Singh, AIR 1942 Lahore 76.
7. It has been further contended by the learned counsel for respondent that Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code is also no bar to the complaint filed by the respondent. As the offence for which the petitioner has been summoned is under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. He has further submitted that if is a different offence than the offence under section 182 of the Indian Penal Code, therefore, the complaint filed by the respondent is maintainable before the learned Magistrate under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. Counsel for the respondent has further contended that Anil Kumar Chopra v. M.K. Khoslas case (supra), is not applicable to the facts of the present case. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I hold that the complaint filed by the respondent under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code is maintainable and provision of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not a bar to cognizance of the offence. It is further held that Baldev Raj v. Kesar Dass and others and Chanan Singh and others v. Tarak Singhs case (supra) are fully applicable to the facts of the present case.
8. Provision of Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code is also no bar to the present complaint filed by the respondent under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code because Section 182, Indian Penal Code is a different offence from Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint filed by the respondent is maintainable and there is no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the same is rejected.
9. The relevant provision in the pr
