2009 (6) TMI 1025 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of complaint u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. Allegations of defamation u/s 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Validity of the process issued by the Magistrate.
4. Verification statement requirements.
5. Mens rea requirement for defamation.
6. Applicability of section 397(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Summary:

1. Quashing of Complaint u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
The applicants sought to quash a complaint filed by the 1st respondent alleging defamation u/s 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate initially dismissed the complaint against accused no.1 but issued process against accused nos.2 to 8. The Sessions Judge later directed the issuance of process against accused no.1 as well.

2. Allegations of Defamation u/s 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code:
The 1st respondent, a Public Charitable Trust, alleged that defamatory statements made by accused no.1 were published by the applicants in their newspaper, causing harm to the Trust's reputation. The applicants contended that the statements were true reproductions of what was said by accused no.1 at a press conference.

3. Validity of the Process Issued by the Magistrate:
The applicants argued that the verification statement did not mention any specific allegations against them, nor did it reference the publication of the news item. The court found that the verification statement lacked details about the applicants' role, making the issuance of process against them illegal.

4. Verification Statement Requirements:
The court emphasized that the verification statement must set out how the offence was committed and how the accused are responsible. In this case, the verification statement only reproduced the utterances of accused no.1 without mentioning the applicants or their publication.

5. Mens rea Requirement for Defamation:
The court noted that mens rea is an essential ingredient for defamation u/s 499 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicants argued that as a company and a printing press, they could not possess mens rea. The court acknowledged this but did not delve deeper as the process was set aside on other grounds.

6. Applicability of Section 397(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
The 1st respondent argued that the application was a second revision, barred by section 397(3). The court, however, held that inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 could still be exercised despite such a bar, as established by the Supreme Court.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the process issued against the applicants, stating that the verification statement did not justify the issuance of process. The benefit of this order was limited to the applicants, and the case against the other accused would proceed as per law.