Rubi Adhikari Sehgal And ANR v. Yashpal Joshi
!
"
# $ % "
!" # #
$ " & '(
)
( '(
)
(
$ "% ( *
)
+,((,( ) -
) (( &, )
% .
/ )
)
0 ( ((
1122 ) 3, & , ((2
,
)
- &( 2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned Revisional Court, vide impugned order dated 10.01.2023, has erroneously set aside the well reasoned order of the learned Trial Court dated 04.02.2015, without identifying any illegality or jurisdictional error in the said order. While drawing the attention of this Court to the Complaint, annexed as Annexure P-2, learned counsel has asserted that
a bare reading of the Complaint demonstrates that the ingredients of the alleged offences are not even substantiated, as neither the Complaint nor the evidence presented during the preliminary stage mentions any public dissemination or publication of the Complaint made by the petitioner to the police. Furthermore, petitioner No.2 is not even a party to the Complaint, which is allegedly defamatory. While referring to the provisions of Section 499 of the IPC, learned counsel has further submitted that the essence of the offence of defamation necessitates that the accused, with malicious intent, commits an act that lowers the reputation of the complainant in the eyes of the public. Therefore, for defamation to occur, the alleged act must be communicated or published in such a way that it reaches the public.
Learned counsel has submitted that in the instant case, the Complaint merely states that a report was made to the police, which led to the reputation of the respondent being injured. It has been further submitted that it is not even the case of the respondent that this report was ever made public or communicated to anyone else, and hence, it cannot be considered defamatory by any reasonable interpretation.
3.
Learned counsel has still further submitted that it is well settled that if a Complaint made to a person in authority is found to be false or unsubstantiated, only the concerned officer or a superior officer may take action against the complainant, if deemed appropriate. Learned
counsel has additionally argued that the respondent had also filed a suit for unliquidated damages against the petitioner, her daughter, and her late father on the same issue as raised in the impugned Complaint. However, the learned Trial Court dismissed this suit under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, by holding that it did not disclose any cause of action. In support, learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to Annexures P-4 to P-6. It has still further been submitted that the Complaint made by the petitioner to the police was a genuine and bona fide action, motivated by concern for her father's safety and property, as several persons had attempted to occupy her father's property, by taking advantage of his old age and his medical ailments.
The petitioner and her sisters thus, acted swiftly to protect their father and themselves from potential harm. Learned counsel has therefore contended that such a Complaint cannot be deemed defamatory and the actions, which were taken in good faith, fall within the exceptions outlined in Section 499 of the IPC. It has lastly been argued by the learned counsel that the Revisional jurisdiction of courts is limited, and the impugned order reflects a complete lack of application of mind and a failure to appreciate the relevant law in the said regard. 4.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the submissions and prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It has been argued by the learned counsel that
the Complaint clearly reveals that the allegations against the petitioners are defamatory, with malicious intent clearly discernible. Learned counsel has further drawn the attention of this Court to the testimonies of CW-2 Hari Om Shashtri (a priest of Rameshwar Shiv Mandir, Karnal), CW-3 Parkash Rao, and CW-4 Anil Kumar (a shopkeeper), by asserting that these testimonies reveal that the allegations leveled by respondent No.1 against the complainant were widely communicated and had a significant impact on his reputation. CW-2 Hari Om Shashtri testified that on coming to know that the complainant had a criminal bent of mind, and was involved in land grabbing, he developed a deep resentment towards the complainant.
This negative sentiment extended to some of the other friends of the complainant, namely Amir Chand, Anil Kamboj, Parkash Rao, and Pritam Singh, who then severed all communication with the complainant, and all his efforts to reconcile with them were in vain. CW-3 Parkash Rao also corroborated this during his testimony before the trial Court, that he too had heard about these allegations, which influenced his opinion of the complainant. CW4 Anil Kumar, residing just 200 meters away, from the residence of the complainant, also testified that he had heard similar accusations from the police, prompting him and others to distance themselves from the complainant.
proves that the allegations against the respondent were baseless; they were made with full knowledge and intent that they would harm the reputation of the complainant in the eyes of the general public, his family, and friends. Learned counsel has therefore, vehemently argued that these imputations were clearly intended to damage his reputation and did not fall within any of the exceptions to Section 499 of the IPC, thereby, making them punishable under Section 500 of the IPC. 5.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material on record.
6.
Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to refer to the provisions of Section 499 of the IPC which deals with defamation. Section 499 IPC reads as under:
!
"
#
"$
#
%
!
"&
"$
' !
" (
#
" $
#
!
"&
(
" $
(
)
!
"*
(
"$
(
)
%
!
" *
" $
+
% !
"(
"$
!
!
" ,
"$
+
"
- !
"$
. " $
' !
" (
"
/
7.
Section 499 of the IPC outlines the legal framework for the offence of defamation. A minute perusal of its provisions which stand reproduced hereinabove, make it abundantly clear that defamation takes place when a person, through spoken or written words, signs, or visible representations, makes or publishes an imputation concerning another individual with the intent to harm or with the knowledge or reasonable belief that such imputation will harm that individual's reputation. This definition is broad, encompassing various forms of communication - whether oral, written, visual, or symbolic - that might injure a person's standing in society.
8.
The key ingredients that constitute defamation under these provisions are the intent to harm or the knowledge that harm is likely to occur as a result of the imputation. It is not necessary that the person making the statement explicitly intends to damage the reputation of another person; it is sufficient if they act with the knowledge that their words or actions are likely to cause harm. To further elaborate, defamation under Section 499 IPC can occur through direct statements or even through indirect suggestions or insinuations that could degrade the reputation of a person. The law thus, recognizes the significant power that words and other forms of expression have on influencing how a person is perceived by others. Protecting an individual's reputation is of paramount importance under the law, and Section 499
IPC provides legal recourse against any unwarranted or malicious attack on that reputation. However, Section 499 of the IPC at the same time, also recognizes that not all statements that could potentially harm someone's reputation are wrongful or unlawful. There are certain exceptions to this rule, acknowledging circumstances where imputations may be justified, such as when made in the public interest or in good faith. Section 499 IPC also strikes a balance by providing specific exceptions, ensuring that the law does not unduly restrict free speech or the right to legitimate concerns.
9.
The eighth exception to Section 499 of the IPC provides a crucial limitation on the application of law of defamation, particularly in the context of complaints made to persons in position of authority. As per this exception, it is not considered defamation, to make an accusation against someone, to a person who has lawful authority over them, provided that the accusation is made in good faith. This exception is designed to protect individuals who report wrong doing, or misconduct, to appropriate authorities, from the liability of defamation, as long as they act with honest intentions and reasonable diligence. 10.
For example, if a person makes a complaint to the police or any other authorized official regarding another individual's misconduct or if in a complaint made before a Court with respect to certain allegations, this action would not be deemed defamatory under the
eighth exception, as long as the complaint is made in good faith. The law here seeks to encourage the reporting of genuine concerns to those who have the power to take appropriate action, without the threat of legal repercussions for defamation. Exception eighth to Section 499 IPC reflects the recognition by the law that the protection of public interest and the administration of justice often require individuals to report their concerns to the relevant authorities, and it would also include complaints made to the police under Section 154 of the IPC which could form the basis of prosecution of an individual.
11.
It would also be apposite to refer to the definition of "Good Faith" under Section 52 of the IPC. This term has been defined under Section 52 IPC and plays a pivotal role in determining whether the eighth exception to Section 499 IPC applies. Section 52 IPC specifies that an action is not considered to be done in 'Good Faith' if it is undertaken without due care and attention. This definition implies that 'Good Faith' is not merely a subjective belief in the righteousness of one's actions; rather, it requires that the person acts with a reasonable degree of caution, diligence, and attention to the truth of the matter before making an accusation.
( In practical terms, for an accusation to qualify as having been made in good faith, the person making the accusation must have taken reasonable steps to verify the facts and must have a genuine belief
that the accusation is justified. The law demands a high standard of integrity, responsibility, and awareness of the potential consequences of one's actions on the reputation of others. In the present case and in the light of the eighth exception to Section 499 IPC, and the definition of 'Good Faith' in Section 52 IPC, it is clear that an accusation made in good faith to an authorized person regarding matters within their jurisdiction does not constitute defamation. Moreover, upon a thorough examination of the allegations levelled in the complaint in question, this Court has no hesitation in holding that it is evident that no prima facie case for defamation is made out, as the requisite ingredients of the offence under Section 499 IPC are not at all satisfied. Therefore, the
-
) /
) 4
)
/( ( 3 / ) )
/
& &'()* #+,-*.* +-/
$012-* 3)4-012&33&56#/3/*323-312/-3% 7# 7/
-
) / 0
#
%*
%
122$&(
3
!
4
%
+
"
!
/ ( 5
/ )&
,67
)
0 (
/ & )
(,
- &
( 2(
0 (
)
(*
&
)
/
&
& )) ((
( 5
/
/) )
)) &( *
) )
- & &
) &
)
( ( '
4
)
/ /
8 9
$ /
) & (*
&
) 8 9) (6
) )
- ) ) ))
11
2 )3,
) ) (*)
) )
) & )
( 3 )
/
((
/ (( &, )
% . &- -
(
$ " #*,/*.(*-%8 6
:
$:0 6 $:0