IMPORTANT POINT
Accusations made in good faith to an authorized person do not constitute defamation under Section 499 IPC.

JUDGMENT :

VIVEK BHARTI SHARMA, J.

1. Heard.

2. Admit.

3. The present C-482 petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the order dated 20.02.2016 passed by learned Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bageshwar in Criminal Case No. 190/2015, titled Kundan Prasad Tiwari Vs. Bhuwan Chandra Pathak and another, whereby the learned court dismissed the complaint of the petitioner filed against the respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 499, 500 & 501 of IPC and further to quash the order dated 20.07.2016 passed by the learned Court of Sessions Judge, Bageshwar whereby the learned Court dismissed the Revision No. 08/2016, filed by the petitioner against the order dated 20.02.2016.

4. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a fourth class employee/driver in the year 2003 during disaster in an emergency management centre at District Headquarter Bageshwar. On 01.10.2013, respondent no. 1, who was also an employee posted as Chief Revenue Accountant, lodged FIR No. 78/2013 against the petitioner and others in Kotwali Bageshwar for the offence under Section 380 of IPC with the allegation that the petitioner was involved in theft of a paper book/file from the District Office of Chief Revenue Accountant at Bageshwar.

5. Pursuant to the said FIR, the Police Bageshwar after investigation submitted final report in the matter. The learned Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bageshwar issued notices to the respondent no. 1 to file his objection, if any, on the final report submitted by the Police Bageshwar. However, respondent no. 1 moved an application before the Court stating that he has no objection on the final report, therefore, the C.J.M accepted the final report (Annexure No. 1 to the petition)

6. On 13.07.2015, the petitioner filed a complaint case (Annexure No. 2 to the petition) against the respondents before the learned Court of C.J.M. Bageshwar for offences punishable under Section 499, 500 & 501 of IPC. It was alleged in the complaint that the respondents with a malicious intention lodged false FIR against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 380 of IPC just to defame the petitioner.

7. In pursuance of the complaint, the petitioner examined Devi Dutt S/o Bachiram, Sambhu Dutt Kandpal S/o Shri Jagat Nath as witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. who supported the version of the petitioner. Statements of the witnesses (Annexure No. 3 & 4 to the petition) are also enclosed.

8. The learned court of C.J.M. Bageshwar dismissed the complaint of the petitioner under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. vide order dated 20.02.2016 (Annexure No. 5 to the petition) and gave a finding that the case of the petitioner is covered under exception eight to Section 499 of IPC, therefore, the respondents cannot be summoned to face the trial for the offence of defamation.

9. Being aggrieved by the order dated 20.02.2016, the petitioner filed Criminal Revision No. 08/2016 before the Learned Court of Sessions Judge Bageshwar (Annexure No. 6 to the petition). Learned Court of Sessions Judge, Bageshwar dismissed the revision vide order dated 20.07.2016 (Annexure No. 7 to the petition) affirming the order of the trial Court, hence, the present petition with the following grounds has been preferred:

(1) that, the opposite party filed no objection against final report itself shows that the allegations of theft against the petitioner were false;

(2) that, the FIR was lodged against the petitioner without due care and attention, therefore, it cannot be said that the accusations were preferred in “good faith” which is defined in Section 52 of IPC, thus, exception 8 of Section 499 IPC is not attracted in the instant case;

(3) that, the version of the complainant is fully supported by the statements of the two independent witnesses examined U/s 202 of Cr.P.C.

(4) that, the Magistrate wrongly came to the conclusion that there are no sufficient grounds for proceedings and dismissed the complaint U/s 203 of Cr.P.C. that, the revisi