Case Note & Summary
The Bombay High Court at Goa, by a common judgment dated 27 June 2018, allowed two criminal writ petitions filed by Prof. Y. V. Reddy, Registrar of Goa University, and Dr. Gopakumar V., Dean of Goa University, seeking quashing of FIRs registered against them for offences under Sections 499, 500, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The FIRs were lodged by one Shri Sakharay Naik, an advocate, alleging that the petitioners had defamed him and criminally intimidated him through certain statements and communications made in their official capacities. The background of the dispute relates to a complaint made by the complainant against the University regarding alleged irregularities in admissions. The petitioners, in response to queries from the police and the University's internal processes, made statements that the complainant claimed were defamatory and threatening. The High Court examined the contents of the alleged defamatory statements and found that they were made in good faith in the discharge of official duties, and thus fell within the protection of Exception 9 of Section 499 IPC. The court also held that the alleged threats to take legal or disciplinary action did not constitute criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC as they were lawful actions. Additionally, the court held that the private complaint for defamation was barred under Section 195(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) because the defamation was of a public servant concerning his official conduct, and no complaint by the public servant himself had been filed. The court also noted that Section 197 CrPC did not apply as the petitioners were not public servants removable from office by the State Government. Consequently, the court quashed the FIRs and all proceedings arising therefrom.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Defamation - Good Faith - Official Capacity - Statements made by Registrar and Dean of Goa University in discharge of official duties, in response to queries and complaints, are protected under Exception 9 of Section 499 IPC as they were made in good faith for the protection of the interests of the University - Held that no offence of defamation is made out as the statements were not published with intent to harm reputation but in furtherance of official duties (Paras 10-15). B) Criminal Law - Intimidation - Section 506 IPC - Ingredients - Mere use of words 'legal action' or 'disciplinary action' does not constitute criminal intimidation unless there is a threat to cause injury to person, reputation or property with intent to alarm - Held that the alleged threats were lawful actions within official capacity and do not attract Section 506 IPC (Paras 16-18). C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 195 - Bar on Cognizance - Defamation of a public servant concerning official act - Complaint by public servant required - Since the defamation alleged was against a public servant (complainant) in respect of his conduct in discharge of public functions, the court could not take cognizance except on complaint in writing by the public servant concerned - Held that the private complaint filed by the complainant was barred under Section 195(1)(a) CrPC (Paras 19-22). D) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 197 - Sanction for Prosecution - Applicability to public servants not removable without government sanction - The petitioners, being Registrar and Dean of a University, are not public servants removable from office by the State Government, hence no sanction under Section 197 CrPC is required - Held that the protection under Section 197 CrPC is not available to the petitioners (Paras 23-25). E) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 340 - Procedure for offences against public justice - The complainant had also filed a complaint under Section 340 CrPC alleging that the petitioners had given false evidence - Held that the pendency of proceedings under Section 340 CrPC does not bar the petitioners from seeking quashing of the FIRs for defamation and intimidation (Para 26).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners for offences under Sections 499, 500, 506 IPC are liable to be quashed on the grounds that the alleged statements were made in official capacity and in good faith, and whether the complaints were barred under Sections 195 and 197 CrPC.
Final Decision
The court allowed both criminal writ petitions and quashed the FIRs registered against the petitioners for offences under Sections 499, 500, and 506 IPC, along with all proceedings arising therefrom.
Law Points
- Criminal defamation requires mens rea and publication with intent to harm reputation
- Statements made in official capacity and in good faith are protected
- Section 197 CrPC does not apply to public servants not removable without government sanction
- Section 195 CrPC bars cognizance for defamation of a public servant concerning official acts without complaint by public servant
- Section 340 CrPC procedure for offences against public justice is not a bar to filing private complaint for defamation
