The determination of the applicability of defamation exceptions requires factual evidence that cannot be conclusively resolved in pre-trial proceedings.

ORDER

This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed challenging the order dated 30.11.2018 passed in Criminal Revision No.21/2017 by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdol, affirming the order dated 09.03.2017 passed by the learned ACJM, Shahdol, whereby cognizance has been taken against the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 500 of the IPC.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant is an Advocate and was the President of the District Bar Association, Shahdol. Respondent No. 1 is also an Advocate, and Respondent No. 2 was the District President of the Samajwadi Party at the relevant time. In the Municipal Election, both the applicant and respondent No.1 contested for the post of President; however, both lost the election. It is alleged that the applicant addressed a written complaint dated 18.09.2012 to the Superintendent of Police, Shahdol, alleging that respondents No.1 and 2, by forging documents and making false declarations, obtained the election symbol “Cycle” and caused publication of news in a local newspaper, thereby committing offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC. The applicant also filed a private complaint before the competent Court, which was subsequently withdrawn under Section 257 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thereafter, respondents No.1 and 2 filed a complaint alleging commission of offences under Sections 182, 211, and 500 of the IPC. The learned ACJM, however, took cognizance only of the offence punishable under Section 500 of the IPC. The revision preferred by the applicant against the said order came to be dismissed.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the allegations were made on the basis of the material contained in the booklet of the State Election Commission and the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961.The imputation was made in good faith concerning a public question relating to the election. The case is covered under the First and Third Exceptions to Section 499 IPC (imputation of truth for public good and expression of opinion on a public question). The courts below erred in treating the matter as one requiring evidence. He submits that both the Trial Court as well as the Revisional Court erred in law in not deciding the issue specifically raised by the applicant by observing that it is a matter of evidence, whereas the same forms the very basis for the constitution of the offence in light of Exceptions 1 and 3 to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. He therefore prays that the petition be allowed. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kishore Balkrishna Nand vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2023 5 Supreme 571 : (2023 LiveLaw (SC) 602.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents submits that the applicant, after losing election, made false and defamatory allegations. No objection was raised during scrutiny of nomination. The complaint was publicized in newspaper, harming reputation of respondents. He further argued that withdrawal of earlier complaint indicates falsity of allegations. He prays for dismissal of petition. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the decision of the this Court in the case of Shivraj Singh Chouhan & Anr. vs. Vivek Krishna Tankha (M.Cr.C. No.12558/2024).

5. Before examining the rival submissions, it is apposite to note the essential ingredients of offence under Section 500 IPC (punishment for defamation), as defined under Section 499 IPC:-

1. Making or publishing any imputation concerning a person;

2. Such imputation must be