Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Deep Saraf, filed a criminal complaint against non-applicants Dr. Murli Agrawal, Ashwin Agrawal (directors of Vidarbha Refineries Ltd.), and Pradip Chitre (manager of Bank of India) alleging defamation under Section 500 IPC. The complaint stated that in a meeting on 05.01.2002, the directors resolved that no bank transaction would occur without all directors' signatures, and this resolution was communicated to bankers. The applicant claimed that the non-applicants made defamatory statements about him. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akola, issued process against the non-applicants. The non-applicants challenged this order in criminal revisions before the Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon, who allowed the revisions and set aside the process. The applicant then filed this application under Section 482 CrPC before the Bombay High Court. The High Court examined the complaint and found that the alleged defamatory statements were made only to the complainant himself and not published to any third party. The court held that publication to a third party is an essential ingredient of defamation under Section 499 IPC. Since the complaint did not allege any publication, no offence was made out. The court dismissed the application, upholding the revisional court's order.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Defamation - Section 500 IPC - Publication Requirement - The essential ingredient of defamation under Section 499 IPC is publication of the defamatory imputation to a third party. In the absence of any evidence that the alleged defamatory statement was communicated to anyone other than the complainant himself, the offence is not made out. The court held that the revisional court correctly set aside the process issued by the Magistrate as the complaint did not disclose any publication. (Paras 4-6)
B) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of Proceedings - Section 482 CrPC - Inherent Powers - The High Court can exercise its inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings when the complaint does not disclose any offence or the proceedings are an abuse of process of law. The court upheld the revisional court's order quashing the process, as the complaint lacked the essential ingredient of publication. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the criminal defamation complaint under Section 500 IPC against the non-applicants was maintainable in the absence of any publication of the alleged defamatory statement to third parties.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the application, upholding the revisional court's order setting aside the process. The court held that the complaint did not disclose any publication of defamatory material to third parties, which is essential for an offence under Section 500 IPC.
Law Points
- Criminal defamation
- Section 500 IPC
- publication requirement
- quashing of criminal proceedings
- inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (09) 211
Criminal Application (APL) No.383/2012
Mr. S. V. Sirpurkar for applicant, Mr. I. Damle, A.P.P. for non applicant no.4
Dr. Murli Hanumandas Agrawal, Ashwin Murli Agrawal, Pradip V. Chitre, State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal application under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of revisional court order setting aside process in defamation case.
Remedy Sought
The applicant sought to set aside the revisional court's order dated 11.03.2010 which quashed the process issued by the Magistrate under Section 500 IPC.
Filing Reason
The applicant alleged that the non-applicants made defamatory statements against him in a meeting and communicated a resolution to bankers.
Previous Decisions
The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akola issued process against non-applicants in Misc. Criminal Case No.136/2008. The Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon allowed Criminal Revision No.121/2008 and Criminal Revision No.38/2009, setting aside the process.
Issues
Whether the complaint under Section 500 IPC disclosed the essential ingredient of publication of defamatory imputation to a third party.
Submissions/Arguments
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the revisional court erred in setting aside the process.
The non-applicants did not appear for final hearing.
Ratio Decidendi
For an offence of defamation under Section 500 IPC, publication of the defamatory imputation to a third party is an essential ingredient. In the absence of any allegation of publication, no offence is made out, and the proceedings are liable to be quashed.
Judgment Excerpts
The learned counsel for the applicant seriously assailed the judgment and order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon dated 11.03.2010 in Criminal Revision No.121/2008 and Criminal Revision No.38/2009 whereby the learned revisional Court allowed those two criminal revisions and set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akola in Misc. Criminal Case No.136/2008 whereby the process for the offence under section 500 of the IPC was issued against the non applicant nos. 1 to 3.
In the complaint, there is no whisper that the alleged defamatory statement was published to any third party. Therefore, the revisional Court has rightly set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate issuing process.
Procedural History
The applicant filed a criminal complaint under Section 500 IPC before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akola, who issued process against non-applicants. The non-applicants filed Criminal Revision No.121/2008 and Criminal Revision No.38/2009 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon, who allowed the revisions and set aside the process on 11.03.2010. The applicant then filed the present application under Section 482 CrPC before the Bombay High Court, which was dismissed on 20.09.2017.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 500, 499
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 482
