2023 Supreme(SC) 1013

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BELA M. TRIVEDI, DIPANKAR DATTA, JJ.
M/s Iveco Magirus Brandschutztechnik Gmbh – Appellant
Versus
Nirmal Kishore Bhartiya and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1959 of 2012
Decided On : 05-10-2023

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Magistrate while deciding whether to issue process is entitled to form a view looking into materials before him.
(2) Defamation – If from evidence led it is established that authorised agent had issued defamatory statements with consent of principal or that principal, without giving consent, had due knowledge of such defamatory statements, yet, did not caution/reprimand agent for doing so or had not disowned statements so made, prosecution for defamation should not be nipped in bud on specious ground that authorised agent is supposed to act lawfully.
(3) Binding Precedent – While deciding cases on facts, more so in criminal cases, courts should bear in mind that each case must rest on its own facts and similarity of facts in one case cannot be used to bear in mind conclusion of fact in another case.

Headnote:

(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 200, 204 and 482 - Issuance of process - When a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence proceeds under Section 200 based on a prima facie satisfaction that a criminal offence is made out, he is required to satisfy himself by looking into allegations levelled in complaint, statements made by complainant in support of complaint, documentary evidence in support of allegations produced by him as well as statements of any witness complainant may choose to produce to stand by allegations in complaint - If an inquiry or an investigation is conducted under Section 200, reports should also be looked into by Magistrate before issuing process under Section 204 - Magistrate while deciding whether to issue process is entitled to form a view looking into materials before him - Since it is not statutory mandate that reasons should be recorded in support of formation of opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding whereas dismissal of a complaint has to be backed by brief reasons, degree of satisfaction invariably must vary in both situations. (Para 44)

(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 500/107/34 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 200, 204 and 482 - Defamation - Common intention - Writing letters containing malicious and defamatory statements and imputation against complainant - Summons issued - In context of a complaint of defamation, at the stage Magistrate proceeds to issue process, he has to form his opinion based on allegations in complaint and other material (obtained through process referred to in Section 200/Section 202) as to whether 'sufficient ground for proceeding' exists as distinguished from 'sufficient ground for conviction' which has to be left for determination at the trial and not at the stage when process is issued - In a case where offence of defamation is claimed by accused to have not been committed based on any of Exceptions and a prayer for quashing is made, High Courts can go no further and enlarge scope of inquiry if accused seeks to rely on materials which were not there before Magistrate - What Magistrate could not do, High Courts may not do - Issue of process under Section 204 read with Section 200, Cr.P.C. does not ipso facto stand vitiated for non-consideration of Exceptions to Section 499, IPC unless, before High Court it is convincingly demonstrated that even on the basis of complaint and materials that Magistrate had before him and without there being anything more, facts alleged do not prima facie make out offence of defamation and that consequently, proceedings need to be closed - Trial Court was not unjustified in issuing summons to accused based on materials before it. (Paras 45, 46, 47 and 50)

(C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 499, Exception 4 - Defamation - Exception - Whether a company can be prosecuted for defamation when alleged defamatory statements are made not by it (company) but by its authorised agent - It must necessarily depend on facts of each case - If from evidence led it is established that authorised agent had issued defamatory statements with consent of principal or that principal, without giving consent, had due knowledge of such defamatory statements, yet, did not caution/reprimand agent for doing so or had not disowned statements so made, there is no reason why prosecution for defamation should be nipped in bud on specious ground that authorised agent is supposed to act lawfully and not unlawfully - It is for appellant to demonstrate before Trial Court that Fourth Exception is attracted, or plead any other defence, and discharge its burden of proof in respect thereof during course of trial. (Paras 54, 56 and 57)

(D) Judicial Decorum - Binding Precedent - Inter se decisions of Supreme Court, a decision of a Constitution Bench would be binding on Benches of lesser strength - Ordinarily, decision of a larger Bench has to be preferred unless a Bench of lesser strength doubts an earlier view, formulates point for answer and refers the matter for further consideration by a larger Bench in accordance with law - If, however, decisions taking divergent views are rendered by Benches of co-equal strength, next course to be adopted is to attempt to reconcile views that appear to be divergent and to explain those contrary decisions by assuming, to the extent possible, that they applied to different facts - Other course available is to look at whether previous decision has been noticed, considered and explained in subsequent decision; if not, earlier decision continues to remain binding whereas if answer is in affirmative, subsequent decision becomes binding decision - If subsequent Bench, instead of deciding the matter before it finally upon consideration of decision of earlier Bench, formulates point of difference and makes a reference for a decision by a larger Bench, it is former decision that continues to govern field so long larger Bench does not decide reference - While deciding cases on facts, more so in criminal cases, courts should bear in mind that each case must rest on its own facts and similarity of facts in one case cannot be used to bear in mind conclusion of fact in another case. (Paras 40 and 41)

Facts of the case:

Following questions of law emerge for answer:

(i) Whether, while considering a private complaint alleging defamation, Magistrate before summoning accused ought to confine himself to allegations forming part of petition only or he may, applying his judicial mind to exceptions to section 499, IPC, dismiss complaint holding that facts alleged do not make out a case of defamation?

(ii) Whether and, if at all, to what extent, is it open to High Courts to exercise inherent power saved by Section 482, Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings for defamation by setting aside summoning order upon extending benefit of any of Exceptions to Section 499, IPC?

Findings of Court:

If at all benefit of Fourth Exception or any other pleaded exception is to be availed of, appellant would be free to appear before Trial Court and raise whatever defence is available to it in law, not necessarily confined to Fourth Exception, for due consideration thereof by Trial Court.

Result : Appeal dismissed.