Dismissed

Eda Suresh Lal v. Neetal John Ratnam

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Dec 2023CRLP/1271/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings for defamation arising from a caution board erected by him. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that whether the imputation was made in good faith is a question of fact for the trial court to decide during the trial, not for the High Court in a criminal procedure case.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. was dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications are closed.

Eda Suresh Lal Vs Neetal John Ratnam — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶2

/ MONDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER two THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1271 OF 2018

¶6

Between:

¶7

Eda Suresh Lai @ Bose, s/o. Eda Ananda Rao, Hindu, Age: 48 years, Occ Cultivation, R/o. D.No. 1-53 Kotha Narsapura Village, Narsapur Mandal, West Godavari District, AP.

¶8

...Petitioner

¶9

AND

¶10

Neetal John Ratnam, Occ, Retd, Employee R/o. D.No. 56-3-6, AVS Colony, Palakol, West Godavari District. AP.

¶11

The State of AP, Rep. by public prosecutor. High court of A.P. Hyderabad.

¶12

...Respondents

¶13

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in^the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records in C.C.No. 293/2017^{onthefileofthecourtofthe} Additional Judicial First class Magistrate, Narsapur, W.G. District, AP and quash the same as the same is illegal, arbirary and abuse of process of law.

¶14

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2018

¶15

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioner in C.C.No. 293/2017 on the file of the court^{oftheAdditionalJudicial} First class Magistrate, Narsapur, W.G. District, A.P. pending disposal of the above CrI.P.

¶16

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments^{ofSriTURAGASAI} SURYA ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor^on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri S R Sanku, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

¶17

The Court made the following:

¶18

<»

¶19

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶20

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1271 of 2018

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

The present Criminal Petition is filed to call for the record pertaining to C.C. No.293 of 2017, on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsapur,^West Godavari District and to quash the same, wherein, the Court has taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 500, 501, 502, 120-B r/w 34 I.P.C.

¶23

Heard leaned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the unofficial /1st respondent.

¶24

To get attract Section 500 of IPC, the relevant provision is Section 499 IPC, which reads thus:

¶25

“Defamation is an offence under Section 499 of the IPC when someone makes or publishes an incorrect statement, accusation, or false imputation about another person, whether through words, oral communication, visual cues, or any other means.

¶26

499 Ninth Exception - Charge of defamation to come within Ninth Exception accused must prove that he

¶27

¶28

made statement in good faith or in protection of his own interest or someone else’s interest—Ingredients of good faith.

¶29

It is the specific allegation of the 2^^^ respondent herein that the petitioner herein has filed suit O.S.^No.112 of 2004 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Narsapur and the said suit was dismissed, which is^filed for partition of the property of Eeda Ananda Rao, vide judgment and decree dated 10.12.2010 and an appeal^was filed after lapse of 5 years and the same was dismissed. Be that as it may, the petitioner herein through his advocate has erected a caution board stating that the suit land in Rs.No.72/1 and 2, RS No.73/ 1 and 2 and RS No.83/3A total asset of Ac.7-40 cents, belongs to his father’s nephews Mr. John Rathnam, his brother and his sister Medapati Premavathi and niece Eeda Vasantha Kumar and her husband Kumara Ratnam, have forcibly obtained gift deeds from his father who is suffering from paranoia^and further asserted in the caution board that an appeal^was filed against the judgment and decree referred supra^and also stated in the caution board that the property belongs

¶30

¶31

to the petitioner, hence the above persons have no right or title to change the property in the name of other person, and to enter into any agreements or mortgage or any gift deeds or Wills and if anybody to do any act they are^liable for the Criminal actions.

¶32

The 1st respondent is aggrieved by erection of the^said caution board has filed a private complaint under Section 190 r/w 200 of Criminal Procedure Code for appropriate action against the petitioner herein, stating that the verbiage that the 1st respondent herein has obtained the document i.e. gift deed forcibly which causes harm^tothe reputation of the 1st respondent herein as the Court has given a finding accepting the gift deed is valid and^therefore he says that he filed the above said complaint to punish the petitioner/ accused herein for the offence under Sections 500, 501, 502, 120 B r/w 34 IPC.

¶33

The said complaint was assailed in the present Criminal Petition on the ground that the imputation^does not cause any harm or reputation to the 1st respondent herein and though caution board was erected, it was

¶34

¶35

specifically stated that the petitioner has lost the suit for partition, even assuming that the imputation is causing harm to the respondent herein that it is befitted law made under exception 9 to Section 499 IPC. Therefore,^he prayed to quash the proceedings by relying on the judgment of the HonTDle Apex Court in Priyanka Srivastava and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others^ wherein the said judgment, the Hon^ble Supreme Court has stated the necessity of filing of affidavit along with the complaint. When the complaint is not supported by an affidavit,^such a complaint is liable to be dismissed, as it is nonest^inthe eye of law.

¶36

The veracity of the complaint can be verified by the learned Magistrate and the nature of laws of the case. whether the complaint has been filed in routine manner without taking any responsibility whatsoever or to^harass certain person. Undoubtedly, the very purpose of the filing of affidavit is necessary, as per the judgment of the^Hon’ble Apex Court as referred supra.

¶37

(2015) 6 see 287

¶38

¶39

But in the judgment of the Uttaranchal High Court after considering the judgment of the Priyanka Srivatsava case referred supra, held that the act of the Court ‘not obtained the affidavit’ which cannot be attributed to the party by relying on the Latin maxim “Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit”. Whether, the act of the Court shall not prejudice to the party, and if a Court fails to direct the party to do affidavit, the same cannot be attributed to the party and on such ground, the party cannot be thrown^out and it can be rectified during the course of the trial.

¶40

The petitioner also relied on the judgment of this Court in Sri Bhaskar Raj Saxena v. Sudershan Ansekhar^, the facts therein and the facts herein are entirely^different. In the above said case. His Lordship observed that^thereis no malice in the statement made by the accused therein and it is further observed that there are several disputes pending between the parties interse. The imputation was made first time at his house and as such imputation is made to defend him in the suit and to protect the property

¶41

^ 2000 (1) ALT (Criminal) 168

¶42

¶43

and also the interest of public by exercising powers^and it will come into exception 9 to Section 499 IPC.

¶44

But, in the present case the civil proceedings has concluded/ ended against the petitioner/ accused and^the appeal against the suit was dismissed inter adia it was stated that complainant has forcibly obtained gift deeds from the father of the petitioner/accused who is suffering from paranoia. The said imputation in the opinion of^the court was not made in good faith and malice is obvious, as the suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

¶45

Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on another judgment in K.V. Chudamani and others v. Osuri Devendra Phanikar and others^ for the proposition that if any imputation is made in good faith by a person for protection of his or her interest is not a defamation.

¶46

In the present case, whether there is any defamation is or not on the action i.e. erection of caution board is not made for the interest of the petitioner herein or for the public interest, is a question of fact which has to be

¶47

3 Manu/AP/13S0/2006

¶48

¶49

decided during course of trial. Knowing very well why^he lost suit for partition, the petitioner herein erected^aboard insinuating the l^t respondent has obtained gift deed forcibly which shows his intention or knowledge for doing wrong that constitutes part of a crime or opposed to^the action or conduct of the accused.

¶50

It is the case of the l^t respondent herein that the aforesaid facts are not applicable to the present case^andin the present case a suit was filed by the petitioner^hereinfor partition and he lost the suit as well the case appeal against the suit, and the caution board which is imputation and it will harm to the reputation of the 1^St respondent herein. It is also contend that he has not erected the board with a good faith and that there^ismens rea in the conduct of the petitioner herein.

¶51

It is the contention of the unofficial respondent,^the accused has erected the caution board with a view to insult and to vilify the unofficial respondent herein in the public and the intended notice amounts to imputation and whether such board was erected with a view to good^faith

¶52

¶53

or not, is a question of fact, has to be decided in^thecourse of the trial by leading the evidence.

¶54

Unless that imputation has to be proved or established that it was made in good faith for the protection of the interest of the person making it,^which means that has been necessary to show in the course^of trial that the imputation was made with good faith.

¶55

Therefore, this Court is not inclined to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused as the imputation is made in good faith under exception⁹ to Section 499 IPC, which has to be decided during the course of trial.

¶56

This Court cannot conduct a mini trial and not inclined to go into factual aspect that a trial being proceeded to decide that it has been done in good faith. 17. Therefore, on the above circumstances, this Court feels that there are no merits in the present Criminal Petition and the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. 18. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶57

¶58

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any

¶59

shall stand closed.

¶60

Sd/- S SRINIVASA PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶61

//TRUE COPY//

¶62

SECTION OFFICER

¶63

To, 1. The Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsapur,^WestGodavari District. 2. One CC to Sri. Turaga Sai Surya, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. S.R.Sanku, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra^Pradeshat Amaravati. 5. Three CD Copies vna ■m.

HIGH COURT

DATED:04/12/2023

ORDER

CRLP.No.1271 of 2018

8 CoPfes
OSL-