Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 42699
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
N S SANJAY GOWDA, J
SHRI MOHAMMAD WAZIR BAIG – Appellant
Versus
AL AMEEN EDUCATION SOCIETY – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8527 OF 2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. ARAVIND M. NEGLUR.
For the Respondents: SMT. SYEDA SHEHNAZ, SRI. V. BALAKRISHNA
Complaints made to lawful authorities regarding irregularities do not constitute defamation and are protected under the eighth exception of Section 499 of IPC.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 499, 500, and 505 - Defamation - The court quashed the proceedings against the petitioner, finding that the allegations made to competent authorities did not constitute defamation, as they fell within the eighth exception of Section 499. The court emphasized that public-spirited complaints cannot be deemed defamatory. (Paras 12, 15, 18)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was accused of defamation by the complainant society after he made complaints to various authorities alleging irregularities within the institution. The allegations included claims of false statements and derogatory letters written by the petitioner. (Paras 5, 6, 11)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner’s actions of addressing complaints to authorities did not amount to defamation and that there was no bad faith established by the complainants. (Paras 14, 16)
Issues: The primary issue was whether the petitioner’s complaints to authorities constituted defamation under Sections 499 and 505 of IPC. (Paras 12, 18)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that complaints made to lawful authorities regarding irregularities do not amount to defamation and are protected under the eighth exception of Section 499 of IPC. (Paras 14, 18)
Result: The impugned proceedings are quashed, and the criminal petition is allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. complaint filed against petitioner for defamation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. allegations made by petitioner against the institution. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. legal principles surrounding defamation under ipc. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. no justification for prosecution under defamation laws. (Para 18) |
| 5. proceedings against the petitioner are quashed. (Para 19 , 20) |
ORDER
1. On 09.06.2017, a complaint dated 21.04.2017 was presented before the learned Magistrate alleging that the petitioner herein was guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 499 , 500 and 505 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”).
2. The Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and, thereafter, proceeded to pass an order on 29.06.2017 directing registration of a criminal case against the petitioner-accused for offences punishable under Sections 499 , 500 and 505 of IPC and summoned the petitioner.
3. The petitioner being aggrieved by said proceedings has presented this criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 .
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that complainant No.2, i.e., respondent No.2 herein passed away on 27.05.2021. In light of the death of complainant No.2, the proceedings insofar as he is concerned stands abated.
5. In the complaint, it was contended that complainant No.1—Society which has established and is running several educational institutions and is recognized as a premium educational institution, has also been recipient of several awards. It is stated that complainant No.1 has been rated as a ‘Category-A’ institution and is considered to be among the top B-schools of the country.
6. It is alleged that the petitioner (who claimed to be a journalist) had sought the membership of the Society without the requirement of paying any fee and this request was rejected, following which the petitioner started writing vague and false letters against the Society and the Chairman, and his statements were not only false, but also derogatory.
7. It was stated that he had addressed letters to the Karnataka State Board of Wakfs asking for information and was unnecessarily creating problems by defaming the Institution. It was also stated that he lodged a false complaint to the Police Commissioner regarding the unfurling of the National Flag during the Iftar party and this also constituted a defamatory act.
8. It was stated that he had also filed a private complaint which was subsequently registered as a criminal case, and this proceeding ultimately ended in an acquittal and was also confirmed in revision by this Court.
9. It was also alleged that the petitioner was in the habit of making applications under the Right to Information Act, 2005 asking for various documents, and a perusal of those applications clearly indicated that he was habitually engaged in tarnishing and defaming the complainant-Institution.
10. It was also alleged that the Registrar of Co-operative Societies had enclosed a letter of the petitioner and the Society had also submitted a reply.
11. A reading of the complaint would essentially indicate that the only allegation against the petitioner was that he had addressed various letters, made several complaints to several authorities alleging irregularities in the Complainant-Institution. It was the allegation in the complaint that these acts of the petitioner complaining to various authorities amounted to defamation and that he was, in turn, blackmailing the Institution.
12. Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows:
“499. Defamation.—Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person.
Explanation 1.—It may amount to defamat
