The court allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings for defamation. It held that the newspaper report did not refer to the complainant (the maid servant) and therefore she was not a 'person aggrieved' under Section 199 Cr.P.C.
Criminal Petition allowed; proceedings in C.C.No.295 of 2011 quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.737 OF 2012
ORDER:
This petition is filed by the petitioners-A2 and A3 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.295 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Manthani, Karimnagar District.
2. It is alleged in the complaint that on 08-05-2011 a news was published in page No.3 in Karimnagar district edition of Sakshi daily newspaper as ‘SHEELANIKI VELA’. The news covered with a false story and with an introduction that another magic by the Sub Inspector of Police. Through reliable sources, the S.I. had extra marital relation with a woman belonging to the same caste as that of Sub Inspector of Police, that while he was working in Godavarikhani sub division, due to which, she got pregnancy. When she threatened the S.I. to reveal the issue to higher authorities, the S.I. compromised with her and agreed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- and accordingly paid Rs.40,000/- and got her aborted. When she asked for remaining amount of Rs.60,000/-, S.I. refused to pay stating that he was transferred. Some leaders belonging to the ruling party entered into the controversy for settlement. They are insisting her not to tell anybody with regard to the acts of the S.I. Police received information that the people related to the victim are in the way to oppose the issue. There was already one news published in Andhraprabha daily newspaper of Karimnagar district as ‘POLICE SHAAKHALO NAYAVANCHAKUDU’ and with a sub heading ‘PANIMANISHIKI GARBHAM RS.LAKSHAKU BERAM’. According to the said news item, the S.I. had fulfilled his sexual need on his female servant worked in the S.I. quarter and due to which, she became pregnant and for which, S.I. compromised the matter with her as stated above. Basing on the said story, A1 to A3 published the above news item in 3rd page of Karimnagar District edition of their Andhra Prabha news paper without making any enquiry into it’s
genunity and without taking any statement or explanation from the complainant.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that under Section 199 Cr.P.C. 2nd respondent is not an aggrieved person, that there is no mention in the newspaper that news item relates to the de facto complainant, that the circumstances in the news item do not indicate that it was published with reference to the 2nd respondent and hence, continuation of proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of law.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent contended that since the 2nd respondent was only person residing as maid servant in the house of S.I., it can be attributable only to her, that she is the aggrieved person within the meaning of Section 199 Cr.P.C. and hence, he prays to dismiss the petition.
5. Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to prevent abuse of process of Court or to secure ends of justice or to carry out the order passed under this Code. If uncontroverted allegations made in the compliant do not make out a prima facie case of the offences alleged, then only question of quashing the proceedings arises.
6. The news item published in daily newspaper, dated 0805-2011 reads thus:
“This is yet another magical acts of S.I. who is facing accusations of harassing a Trainee Woman S,I. As per the information of the reliable sources, while he was working in Godavari Sub-division, he developed extra marital relationship with a woman belonging to his caste. When she became pregnant, he asked her not to reveal the issue to any person and he promised to pay Rs.1,00,000/- and out of the same, he paid only Rs.40,000/-. Being scared of the S.I., he poor lady did not reveal the said matter to any one. As the same spread from one person to another, the S.I. sent a message to the victim offering balance amount of Rs.60,000/-. While thing being so, few leaders
from the ruling party entered the seen to pacify the victim. They are pressuring her not to reveal about the act of the S.I. to any person. However, by now the police officials got the information that victim relatives have chosen to agitate. Higher officials are contemplating to cause enquiries upon the receipt of any complaint. It should be how this case would twist and turn.”
7. As seen from the above publication, it is clear that it does not point out any woman who has having illicit contacts with the S.I. of police and that woman became pregnant. It is alleged in the news paper that while the S.I. of Police working in Godavari subdivision, he maintained extra marital relationship with that woman who belongs to the same social group of the S.I. of Police. So under no stretch of imagination, it can be said that it can be referable to the 2nd respondent herein.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on a decision [1] reported in G.NARASIMHAN AND OTHERS V T.V.CHOKKAPPA , wherein it was held thus:
“On these contentions, the principal question for determination is whether the respondent could be said to be an aggrieved person entitled to maintain the complaint within the meaning of S. 198 of the Code. That section lays down that no magistrate shall take cognizance of an offence falling inter alia under Ch. XXI of the Penal Code (that is, Ss. 499 to 508) except upon a complaint made by some persons aggrieved of such offence. Section 198, thus, lays down an exception to the general rule that a complaint can be filed by anybody whether he is an aggrieved person or not, and modifies that rule by permitting only an aggrieved person to move a magistrate in cases of defamation. The section is mandatory, so that if a magistrate were to take cognizance of the offence of defamation on a complaint filed by one who is not an aggrieved person, the trial and conviction of an accused in such a case by the Magistrate would be void and illegal.”
9. He further relied on a decision reported in
[2] S. KHUSHBOO V KANNIAMMAL AND ANOTHER , wherein it was held thus:
“There is of course some room for complaints to be brought by persons other than those who are aggrieved, for instance when the aggrieved person has passed away or is otherwise unable to initiate legal proceedings. However, in given facts of the present case, we are unable to see how the complainants can be properly described as 'persons aggrieved' within the meaning of
Section 199(1)(b) Cr.PC. As explained earlier, there was no specific legal injury caused to any of the complainants since the appellant's remarks were not directed at any individual or a readily identifiable group of people. In M.S. Jayaraj Vs. Commissioner of Excise, Kerala and Ors., (2000) 7 SCC 552, this Court observed as under:
"The 'person aggrieved' means a person who is wrongfully deprived of his entitlement which he is legally entitled to receive and it does not include any kind of disappointment or personal inconvenience. 'Person aggrieved' means a person who is injured or one who is adversely affected in a legal sense."
10. When the paper publication cannot be referable to the complainant and in such circumstances, it cannot be said that 2nd respondent is the aggrieved person within the meaning of Section 199 Cr.P.C. Ordinarily, the person aggrieved is the person directly affected or injured. The imputations are not shown to be related to the complainant. Under Section 199 Cr.P.C., no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 500 IPC except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence. The name of the 2nd respondent has not been stated in the paper publication that she worked as maid servant with the S.I. of Police with whom illegal contacts or extra marital relationship are attributed. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of law.
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.295 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Manthani, Karimnagar District.
______________
K.C.BHANU, J
DATED: 04-04-2012 Hsd
[1] AIR 1972 SC 2609
[2] 2010 (3) SCJ 840
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the second respondent is a 'person aggrieved' entitled to file a complaint under Section 199 Cr.P.C. given that the newspaper imputation was not referable to her.
Whether proceedings under Section 500 IPC are maintainable when the published news item does not specifically name or identify the complainant.
Whether quashing the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is necessary to prevent abuse of the process of law.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
G. Narasimhan and Others v T.V. ChokkappaRelied on¶14
AIR 1972 SC 2609 · Who else cites this
S. Khushboo v Kanniammal and AnotherRelied on¶16
2010 (3) SCJ 840
M.S. Jayaraj Vs. Commissioner of Excise, Kerala and Ors.Referred¶19
(2000) 7 SCC 552 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
A2 and A3
Second Respondent
K.C. BHANU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
