9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 290X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is the categorical averment of the respondent in the complaint that the words were spoken by the petitioner when the petitioner was addressing the print and electronic media. The complaint is a mere collection acts of the said to have been done by the political party and its President, but for the few lines of innuendos against the petitioner. The complaint is nothing but an attempt on the part of the respondent to gain political publicity at the cost of judicial time - in the present case, sub-section (6) of Section 199 IPC is the fulcrum of the case on which basis the private complaint has been lodged by the respondent, which has been taken cognizance of by the learned Magistrate. It is implicitly clear that the respondent has taken it on his own to file the private complaint on the basis of some statements alleged to have been made by the petitioner against some other person/entity with which he has no grievance as there is no case of defamation as against him and the ingredients prescribed under sub-section (6) to Section 199 Cr.P.C. in no way stands fulfilled. Therefore, the private complaint alleging defamation has no legs to stand and the cognizance taken on the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case and the documents, which stares on the face of the record, warrants disposal of this case on appreciating the merits and documents available in the typed set, this Court proceeds to dispose of the case without further delaying the disposal of the matter for the presence of the learned counsel for the parties. It is the pointed averment of the petitioner that though the petition has been filed for the offence u/s. 500 IPC, but curiously the summons have been issued by the court below directing the petitioner to appear in relation to an offence u/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which is not only ridiculous, but clearly shows the non-application of mind on the part of the court below in taking cognizance of the issue by issuing summons. It is the further averment of the petitioner that in no way the complainant is affected by the alleged innuendos of the petitioner and further no iota of evidence is also placed before the court below to show that the petitioner has made any such statement before the print and electronic media. It is the further averment of the petitioner that no authorization, whatsoever, has been filed by the respondent to show that he has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sections 500 and 501 IPC provides for punishment for defamation. To attract the punishment contemplated u/s. 500 and 501 IPC, defamation u/s. 499 IPC should be made out. For better clarity, Section 499 IPC is quoted hereunder:- 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 expected, to defame that person. The law on defamation has been dealt with extensively by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Subramanian Swamy Vs. Union of India (2016 (7) SCC 221), adverting to various facets of defamation. One of the main contention raised in the said case relates to 'Reasonable Restriction' found in Article 19 (1) of the Constitution and in that context, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:- 130. The principles as regards reasonable restriction as has been stated by this Court from time to time are that the restriction should not be excessive and in public interest. The legislation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nging climate of growing democracy, it is not permissible to keep alive such a restriction. (Emphasis supplied) From the above proposition of law, it is manifestly clear that the fundamental right to freedom of speech gets ascendance over individual's perception of his own reputation and that the constitutional right cannot be curtailed by taking recourse to criminal jurisprudence. The above decision of the Supreme Court was in the wake of individual's right vis-a-vis right to freedom of speech and expression as enshrined in the Constitution. From the above definition of Defamation it is evident that the words spoken or intended to be read or by signs or by visible representation, makes or publishes any imputation should be the basis on which the act of defamation could be held to be perpetrated. However, in the case on hand, though averment is made by the respondent in the private complaint filed u/s. 199 r/w 200 Cr.P.C., however, no material to substantiate the said act has been filed along with the said complaint, though it is the categorical averment of the respondent in the complaint that the words were spoken by the petitioner when the petitioner was ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sons best known to him, has thought it fit to file the said private complaint and the respondent, being not a person affected by the said alleged statement, invocation of the offence u/s. 500 IPC does not merit acceptance. From the above, it is implicitly clear that the respondent has taken it on his own to file the private complaint on the basis of some statements alleged to have been made by the petitioner against some other person/entity with which he has no grievance as there is no case of defamation as against him and the ingredients prescribed under sub-section (6) to Section 199 Cr.P.C. in no way stands fulfilled. Therefore, the private complaint alleging defamation has no legs to stand and the cognizance taken on the said complaint deserves to be quashed. Further, it is borne out by record that though the complaint has been filed u/s. 199 r/w 200 Cr.P.C., for an offence u/s. 500 IPC, yet the court below, on taking cognizance of the case, has issued summons u/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This clearly shows that the trial court has not adverted to the material placed before it while taking cognizance of the case and the said act of the trial court, in issui ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
