Allowed

Ramchandra Govind Kulkarni v. Pruthviraj Vishvas Chavan and Anr.

Bombay HC10 Apr 2012WP/63/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Bombay Bench Aurangabad quashed an order issuing process under IPC 499 and 500 against a revenue officer who made defamatory remarks in a police statement. The Court held the remarks were made in good faith for self-defense in a pending criminal case, falling within Exception 9 of Section 499 IPC, and dismissed the underlying complaint.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned order dated 10th February, 2005, dismissing the complaint u/s 499 and 500 IPC.

Ramchandra Govind Kulkarni Vs Pruthviraj Vishvas… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

Criminal Writ Petition NO. 63 OF 2006

¶4

Ramchandra S/o Govind Kulkarni, Age : 45 years, Occ : Government Service, at present working as Deputy Commissioner, Revenue, Nashik Division, Nashik, R/o Golf-club, Govt. Quaries, Nashik

¶5

Petitioner

¶6

V E R S U S

¶7

Pruthviraj S/o Vishvas Chavan, Age : 52 years, Occ : Service, R/o Near Aditya Apartment, Behind M.G. College, Jalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra

¶9

Respondents

¶10

Mr. C.R. Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. P.V. Chavan, party-in-person for respondent no.1 Mr. G.R. Ingole, APP for the respondent no.2 /State

¶11

CORAM : A.V.NIRGUDE, J. DATE : 10th April, 2012

¶12

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶13

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and by consent of the learned counsel and the parties, the Petition is taken up for final hearing.

¶14

Heard.

¶15

This Petition mainly challenges the propriety of the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nandurbar, dated 10^th February, 2005 issuing process under Sections 499 and 500 of the

¶16

¶17

Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. The respondent No. 1(complainant) who is present in person has made his submissions personally.

¶18

The factual background of the case is as follows:-

¶19

The petitioner and the respondent no.1 were working as revenue officers in North Maharashtra area. The respondent no.1 alleged that the petitioner made a phone call to him and threatened him of dire consequences if he did not withdraw certain complaint, which he had made against him. Based on this allegation, the respondent no.1 filed a criminal complaint before Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nandurbar on 16^th September, 2004 alleging offence under S,504, 506 IPC etc. This case was registered as Case no. 1556/2004. On the very day, the learned Magistrate issued an order under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code directing police to enquire into the complaint. Accordingly, the police of Nandurbar City Police Station conducted enquiry during which, he even recorded a statement of the petitioner(accused) on 07.12.2004. The respondent no.1 some how obtained the copy of this statement on 20^th December, 2004. In this statement, the petitioner had stated that the respondent no.1 had filed the complaint against him because he has 'pervert and malicious mind’. It is thus seen that the petitioner asserted in his statement that the respondent no.1 is a pervert, malicious and persecuting kind of a person. The respondent no.1 found that these adjectives used by the petitioner for him were defamatory and he filed a complaint under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code against the

¶20

¶21

petitioner in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nandurbar and thereafter, the impugned order dated 10^th February, 2005 was passed. In this order, the learned Magistrate held that the petitioner, who was the accused in the previous case, could not have been made such a statement addressing the respondent no.1 as a pervert, malicious and vindictive person. He said that such adjectives used by the petitioner amounted to defamation. He further held that the petitioner could not have absolute privilege to make such imputation even while making police statement under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 5. The petitioner then went before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nandurbar in a criminal revision application. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that there was prima facie material against the petitioner for issuance of process. He also held that the petitioner was not entitled for production of exception 9 of Section 499 of Indian Penal Code. He further held that the petitioner would be able to prove only during the trial that he made an imputation with “good faith”. He further held that imputations were totally unwarranted. 6. The question is, whether the petitioner in this case had absolute privilege to make imputation quoted above against the respondent no.1. In the alternative whether the petitioner prima facie made these imputations in good faith.

¶22

Let us find out as when and why the petitioner uttered the imputations? It was because of respondent No.1's complaint, the police were directed to make enquiry under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code. During that enquiry, the police also

¶23

¶24

recorded the statement of the petitioner, who was the accused in that case. I went through the entire statement of the petitioner recorded by the police on 7^th December, 2004 and realized that the petitioner was stating on oath to the police that he gave no threats while talking to the respondent no.1 on telephone. He further asserted again on oath that the respondent no.1 made the allegations against him because of vindictiveness and pervert mind. When he made this assertion, one must also keep in mind that the petitioner was not obliged to make any statement even in the enquiry under Section 202 to the Police. His statement was not admissible in evidence. It was only when the police asked him as to whether he had given threats to the respondent no.1, he not only denied the allegations against him, but he asserted vehemently that the respondent no.1, lodged the complaint against him with pervert mind, vindictive attitude etc. When a person defends himself, he must be given wide amplitude and scope for making counter allegations against the complainant. Similar the suggestions would have been made to the respondent no.1 during the trial. In cross examination, such assertions are usually made to indicate that the complainant has vindictive mentality etc. What is stated by the petitioner to the police thus was merely his defence. The statement so made was not a public statement, it was made during the course of enquiry. The report of the enquiry and the statements recorded by the police were not part of the charge sheet filed under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It was part of the report filed under Section 202. The report so filed is only for Court's consideration. On perusal of the report, the learned

¶25

¶26

Magistrate would either dismiss the complaint or issue process against the accused.

¶27

In my view, this case would squarely fall within the parameters of Exception 9 of Section 499, which reads as under : "Ninth Exception :- Imputation made in good faith by person for protection of his or other's interests-

¶28

It is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another provided that the imputation be made in good faith for the protection of the interests of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good."

¶29

I discussed above in what circumstance the petitioner/accused made the imputation against the respondent no.1. He was certainly trying to defend himself in a case that was already filed against him alleging offences under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code. In that context, he said that because of various circumstances that had occurred between both of them, the respondent no.1 had developed personal animosity against him. Making this assertion, was certainly an act of defence, and thus, it can certainly be said that the imputations were made for protecting him. The only question that remains that the imputations could have been made in good faith. The respondent no.1 very strenuously asserted that the question of good faith will be decided at the time of trial, but I do not agree with this at least in this case.

¶30

As said above, the imputations, allegations or rather unsavory adjectives used by the petitioner are apparently made in good faith. As said above, had he not got this opportunity, he would not make these allegations. The fact that he was defending himself in a criminal case, gave him liberty to make these allegations. The situation in which he made these allegations thus justified them. Any ordinary prudent person would have stated so in his statement, while defending a criminal case. As said above, even in the cross examination similar suggestions would have been made to the respondent no.1/complainant. So, in this case, I am not

¶31

¶32

inclined to wait until the trial is over to examine whether the imputations were made by the petitioner in good faith. I hold that on the face of it, the imputations were made in good faith. The Petition should succeed. The impugned order stands quashed and set aside. The complaint stands dismissed.

¶33

( A.V.NIRGUDE, J. )

¶34

+++

¶35

SGA/

Ramchandra Govind Kulkarni v. Pruthviraj Vishvas Chavan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramchandra Govind Kulkarni v. Pruthviraj Vishvas Chavan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Appasaheb Babanrao Yewale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Khan Khairmohammad Hussainkhan Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Narayan Sopan Salunkhe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

B Radhakrishnan and Anr. Vs M/S Videocon Industries Ltd. and Anr.

Parmeshwar Balaji Murkute and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Firozkhan Hakimkhan Pathan and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.