An individual act of defamation is required to invoke Section 500 of the I.P.C. The publication made by a newspaper bureau, based on public agitation, does not constitute an individual act of defamation.

JUDGMENT :

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA, J.

1. The applicants to the C-482 Application, have put a challenge to the impugned summoning order dated 08.06.2018, as it has been rendered in a proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 883 of 2015, Km. Kamla Bisht vs. Bhuwan Singh Waldia and Others whereby the present applicants have been summoned to be tried for commission of offence under Section 500 of the I.P.C. The challenge has also been given to the revisional court’s judgment dated 11.02.2021, as it was passed by the learned Session Judge, Pithoragarh in Criminal Revision No. 14 of 2018, Bhuwan Singh Waldia and Others vs. State and Another.

2. The learned counsel for the applicants has submitted, that no offence under Section 500 of I.P.C. could be made out against the present applicant son the basis of the publication made on 30.07.2015, because the said communication made by way of a publication will not be an offence which could be termed as to be a defamatory publication as per Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. He further submits that the allegations levelled pertaining to the alleged published defamatory remarks is absolutely not sustainable because there was no conclusive evidence available before the learned trial court to enable to draw the proceedings under Section 500 of the I.P.C. as against the present applicants, on the basis of the complaint which has been registered by the respondent before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pithoraghar.

4. In response to it, the learned counsel for the respondent submits, that the publication made in the newspaper on 30.07.2015, itself would be a defamatory remark and the provisions contained under Section 500 of I.P.C. has been rightly attracted against the present applicants. He further submitted that the cognizance order itself, which has been issued by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, is based on cogent reasons and it cannot be said that the summoning order has been issued without application of mind, which could at all call for any interference under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, because there is no apparent illegality whatsoever to set of allegations pertaining to the defamatory remarks as it has been levelled in the summoning order, as that would be a matter to be adjudicated apart from appreciation of facts which may not be a scope under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

5. It is not in dispute between the parties that the basis of proceedings under Section 500 of the I.P.C. by way of Complaint Case No. 883 of 2015, has been the publication in newspaper which was made on 30.07.2015. Though, the counsel for the respondent had attempted to shoulder the exclusive burden of publication on the applicants in order to fasten upon him the liability for commission of an offence under Section 500 of the I.P.C. but this Court is of the view that if the publication itself is taken by the respondent as to be a defamatory remark, the relevant part of which is extracted hereunder:

^^vej mtkyk C;wjks
vkn'kZ dkyksuh ds v/;{k Hkqou ofYn;k ,oa dqlkSyh ds Á/kku j?kqohj flag dh vksj ls MhŒ,eŒ vkSj ,lŒihŒ dks lkSais Kkiu esa vkjksi yxk;k gS fd [kqn xyrh djus ds ckn vc deyk fc"V xkao ds yksxksa ij iqfyfl;k jkSc fn[kkus yxh gSA**

6. In fact, it’s not an opinion which has been individually expressed by the applicants but rather the said publication has been made by “Amar Ujala Bureau” which is a body itself constituted by the publisher, who publishes the news on the basis of the material which is made available to them, upon the same being duly edited.

7. The question would be as to whether any defamatory remark, which is published by the “Bureau of a newspaper”, could be taken as to a defamatory remark on behalf of an individual or not. In order to deal with the aforesaid argument and also an argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that the issue requires an appreciation of factual aspects, which may not be the scope available under Section 482 of