2023 (10) TMI 1470 - SC - Indian Laws

Consideration of exceptions to Section 499 IPC before summoning an accused in a defamation case - Whether the appellant has made out any case for interference with the judicial orders of the Magistrate and the learned Judge under challenge? - Whether a company can be prosecuted for defamation when the alleged defamatory statements are made not by it (the company) but by its authorised agent? - whether the benefit of the Fourth Exception to section 499 IPC as claimed should be accorded to the appellant? HELD THAT - In M.A. Rumugam v. Kittu Alias Krishnamoorthy 2008 (11) TMI 755 - SUPREME COURT the respondent filed a private complaint against the appellant for commission of the offence of defamation under section 500 IPC. Taking cognizance of the said complaint the Magistrate issued summons to the appellant. Aggrieved thereby he filed a petition before the High Court of Judicature at Madras praying to call for the records pertaining to the complaint petition filed by the respondent and to quash the same - This Court had the occasion to consider the applicability of the provisions of section 482 Cr. PC for quashing of a complaint petition filed by the respondent against the appellant under section 500 IPC. While dismissing the appeal the Court went on to apply the well-settled principle of law that those who plead exception must prove it and therefore the burden of proof that his action was bona fide would thus be on the appellant alone. The first complaint was lodged by a distant relative of the deceased accusing three persons of murder whereas the second complaint was lodged by the appellant accusing the respondent no.1 of murdering his uncle. By separate orders the Sub-Divisional Magistrate directed a Magistrate First Class to conduct judicial inquiry. Separate reports were submitted by the Magistrate First Class. In his first report he opined that a prima facie case to proceed against the three accused persons had been made out whereas in his second report he opined that no prima facie case to proceed against the first respondent had been made out. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate perusing the second report dismissed the complaint of the appellant against the respondent no.1 without assigning any reason - the respondent no.1 preferred a revision application before the High Court challenging the direction of the Sessions Judge. The same was allowed by a Single Judge of the High Court and upon grant of certificate under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution the matter was carried to this Court. It was held that upon a finding of a prima facie case the Magistrate was bound to issue process despite the charged person having a defence. Further it was held that the matter was to be decided by an appropriate forum at the appropriate stage and issuance of process could not be refused. While there are several decisions where this Court has consistently laid down the law in one particular line that it is for the Magistrate to consider the Exceptions to section 499 IPC for extension of benefit thereof at the trial when a defence is pleaded by the party seeking to avail the same and upon the burden of proof being discharged by him and that such Magistrate while deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant may not advert to the possible defence of the accused at the time of exercising power under section 202 the other line of decisions seem to proceed on the premise that there is no bar in considering the Exceptions if the accused even without appearing before the Magistrate in response to the summoning order lays a challenge thereto under section 482 Cr. PC and satisfies the relevant High Court by referring to the complaint itself and the statements of the complainant and his witness that the facts alleged (even if deemed to be true) do not constitute an offence and hence there was no sufficient ground for proceeding. Adverting to the aspect of exercise of jurisdiction by the High Courts under section 482 Cr. PC in a case where the offence of defamation is claimed by the accused to have not been committed based on any of the Exceptions and a prayer for quashing is made law seems to be well settled that the High Courts can go no further and enlarge the scope of inquiry if the accused seeks to rely on materials which were not there before the Magistrate - the tests laid down for quashing an F.I.R. or criminal proceedings arising from a police report by the High Courts in exercise of jurisdiction under section 482 Cr. PC not being substantially different from the tests laid down for quashing of a process issued under section 204 read with section 200 the High Courts on recording due satisfaction are empowered to interfere if on a reading of the complaint the substance of statements on oath of the complainant and the witness if any and documentary evidence as produced no offence is made out and that proceedings if allowed to continue would amount to an abuse of the legal process. This too would be impermissible if the justice of a given case does not overwhelmingly so demand. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the Magistrate should consider exceptions to Section 499 IPC before summoning an accused in a defamation case.
2. The extent to which High Courts can exercise inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash defamation proceedings.
3. Whether the appellant has made out a case for interference with the orders of the Magistrate and High Court.
4. Whether a company can be prosecuted for defamation based on statements made by its authorized agent.
5. Whether the Fourth Exception to Section 499 IPC should be accorded to the appellant.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Consideration of Exceptions to Section 499 IPC by Magistrate:

The judgment discusses the role of the Magistrate when issuing process under Section 204 CrPC. It is highlighted that while the Magistrate is not expressly mandated to consider exceptions to Section 499 IPC at the stage of issuing process, there is no bar either. The Magistrate can apply judicial mind to ascertain whether an "offence" is made out and may consider exceptions if the materials before him reveal a complete defense. The decision emphasizes that the Magistrate's role is to determine if there is "sufficient ground for proceeding" rather than "sufficient ground for conviction."

2. High Court's Power under Section 482 CrPC:

The judgment clarifies that High Courts can exercise their inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings if the complaint and materials before the Magistrate do not make out an offence. However, the High Court cannot consider materials not part of the record before the Magistrate. The judgment notes that the High Court's intervention should be limited to cases where allowing proceedings to continue would amount to an abuse of the legal process.

3. Case for Interference with Judicial Orders:

The judgment finds that the Trial Court's order issuing summons was based on a prima facie satisfaction that an offence was made out. The High Court's omission to address all points raised by the appellant does not merit interference, as the learned Judge had considered similar points in a related petition. The judgment holds that the Trial Court's order was not unjustified based on the materials before it.

4. Prosecution of a Company for Defamation:

The judgment holds that whether a company can be prosecuted for defamation based on statements by its authorized agent depends on the facts and evidence presented during the trial. The Power of Attorney, which the appellant relied upon, was not proved and thus could not be considered. The judgment suggests that if it is established that the principal had knowledge of or consented to the defamatory statements, prosecution should not be dismissed on the ground that the agent is supposed to act lawfully.

5. Applicability of the Fourth Exception to Section 499 IPC:

The judgment leaves the question of whether the Fourth Exception to Section 499 IPC applies to the appellant to be determined by the Trial Court during the trial. The appellant is free to demonstrate the applicability of this or any other defense during the trial.

Conclusion:

The appeal is dismissed, and the interim order is vacated. The judgment encourages the Trial Court to expedite the proceedings, which have been unduly delayed. All other points are left open for the appellant to urge before the Trial Court.