Back
2019 Supreme(All) 1657
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.
Vishveshwar Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another - Respondent
Application U/S 482 No. 38158 of 2012
Decided On : 02-09-2019
Advocate Appeared:
Imran Ullah, Adv., N.L. Pandey, Adv., Pankaj Srivastava, Adv.
The determination of intention and culpability in a defamation case requires a full-fledged trial and cannot be prejudged without recording evidence.
Headnote:
Defamation - Criminal Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 500, 501 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The applicant sought to quash the proceedings in a defamation case under Sections 500, 501 of the Indian Penal Code, based on the publication of a news item in newspapers that allegedly defamed the opposite party. The trial court initially dismissed the complaint, but the revisional court set aside the order and directed a fresh consideration. The trial court subsequently summoned the applicant and co-accused, leading to the present application.
Finding of the Court:
The court refused to quash the proceedings, emphasizing the need for a full-fledged trial to determine the intention behind the publication of the defamatory news item and whether it was a statement of fact or published with the motive to defame the opposite party.
Issues: The main issue revolved around whether the publication of the news item was done with the intention to defame the opposite party, and if there was sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the accused under Sections 500 and 501 of the Indian Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the determination of the accused's intention and culpability required a full trial, and the matter could not be prejudged without recording evidence.
Final Decision: The court refused the prayer to quash the proceedings, rejecting the application.
JUDGMENT :
DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant Shri Imran Ullah and in opposition, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 Shri N.L. Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State Shri G.P. Singh and perused the record.
2. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Code') has been moved on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in Complaint Case No. 583 of 2012 (Natthu Lal Yadav v. Pradhan Sampadak and others), under Sections 500, 501 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.'), Police Station-Kotwali, District-Varanasi, pending in the court of A.C.J.M.-II, Varanasi.
3. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and the contentions made in the affidavit filed on his behalf, it would be pertinent to refer here in brief, the complainant's case as narrated in the complaint and the evidence which has been adduced in support thereof. According to the complaint, one Sessions Trial No. 642 of 1999 was initiated against the opposite party no. 2/complainant under Sections 302, 120B of I.P.C., Police Station-Chowk, District-Varanasi pertaining to Crime No. 10 of 1999, in which he was acquitted vide judgment and order dated 05.08.2002 by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No. 5. The Advisory Committee of the National Security Agency (N.S.A.) had communicated by FAX to the opposite party no. 2 that his detention was found to be against law and a direction was issued for his immediate release. Earlier, the District Magistrate had cancelled the license of S.B.B.L. gun of the opposite party no. 2, but subsequently, a report was sent by Inspector, Kotwali pertaining to Crime No. 10 of 1999 in respect to the cancellation of gun license of the opposite party no. 2 and after consideration of the same, the District Magistrate vide order dated 25.08.1999, had cancelled his gun license, against which an appeal was preferred by him before the Commissioner, Varanasi under Section 19 of the Arms Act, 1959 and vide order dated 26.02.2001, the order of District Magistrate was confirmed, against which the opposite party no. 2 had preferred a writ petition No. 20298 of 2010 before the High Court, in which the orders of the District Magistrate and the Commissioner were set aside and the said gun was released in favour of opposite party no. 2 and his armed license gun was renewed up to 2009 and was valid till then. The accused-applicant along with two other co-accused were fully aware of these facts, but in order to assail his dignity, at the instance of co-accused (Sanjay Singh, Inspector, Police Station-Kotwali, District-Varanasi), on 13.06.2007, untrue facts were published in the newspapers, which were derogatory to the opposite party no. 2 and considerably dented his esteem in the eyes of public and people started looking upon him in adverse light and this also led to the breakage of betrothal ('sagaai') of the complainant's son and people started avoiding to meet him so much so that it became very difficult for him to move around and live peacefully a dignified life. This caused immense physical, mental and financial loss to him.
4. The said complaint was registered as Complaint Case No. 2025 of 2007 against the applicant and two other co-accused and on 25.06.2007, the statement of the opposite party no. 2 was recorded under Section 200 of the Code, in which he narrated the same version which has been stated above in the complaint, further clarifying that all the three accused, which included the applicant, in conspiracy with each other, published news item in 'Hindustan' and 'Amar Ujala' daily newspapers on 13.06.2007. The local editors of the said two daily newspapers were made accused along with the S.I. Sanjay Singh who were stated to have deliberately published the said news item, which led to the defamation of the opposite party no. 2 and therefore, it was mention
