Case Note & Summary
The applicants, Ajay Soni (editor of 'Pharmacist Times' newspaper) and Vivek Tatekar (his friend), filed an application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR No. 92/2015 registered at Police Station Umred, Nagpur for offences under Sections 500, 501, 502 read with 34 IPC. The FIR was based on a complaint by Dr. Arvind Pandit, a homeopathic doctor running Radhe Multispeciality Clinic. The applicants had published a news item alleging that Dr. Pandit, though holding only a Certificate Course in Homeopathy (CCH), was prescribing allopathic medicines to patients, especially children and women. The publication was based on a secret complaint received by Smt. Kalyani Wagh, President of Akhil Bhartiya Pharmacist Welfare Association. Smt. Wagh and applicant no. 1 visited the clinic as dummy customers, and Dr. Pandit prescribed allopathic medicines for vomiting and tonsillitis. Smt. Wagh then lodged a complaint with the Food and Drugs Department. The news item was published thereafter. The court examined whether the publication fell within Exception 1 to Section 499 IPC, which protects imputations made in good faith for public good. The court noted that the applicants had taken reasonable steps to verify the facts by visiting the clinic and obtaining a prescription. The publication was aimed at alerting the public about an unqualified practitioner, which is a matter of public interest. The court held that the ingredients of defamation were not made out, and continuing the prosecution would be an abuse of process. The FIR and all proceedings were quashed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Defamation - Exception 1 to Section 499 IPC - Public Good - The court considered whether publication of a news item alleging that a homeopathic doctor was prescribing allopathic medicines without qualification was defamatory. Held that the publication was for public good and in good faith, as the applicants had verified the facts by visiting the clinic as dummy customers and obtaining a prescription. The proceedings were quashed. (Paras 2-10)
B) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of FIR - Section 482 CrPC - Abuse of Process - The court held that continuing the prosecution would be an abuse of process of law as the ingredients of defamation were not made out against the applicants, who acted in public interest. (Paras 11-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the criminal proceedings for defamation against the editor of a newspaper and his friend should be quashed when the news item was published in public interest after due verification.
Final Decision
The court allowed the application and quashed Crime No. 92/2015 registered at Police Station Umred, Nagpur and all proceedings arising therefrom.
Law Points
- Defamation
- Exception 1 to Section 499 IPC
- Public good
- Good faith
- Quashing of FIR
- Section 482 CrPC
- Press freedom
- Reasonable verification
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (07) 177
Criminal Application (APL) No. 903 of 2015
P. N. Deshmukh, M. G. Giratkar
Shri D. V. Chauhan for applicants, Mrs. M. H. Deshmukh for respondent no. 1, Shri H. R. Gadhia for respondent no. 2
Ajay s/o Badrinarayan Soni and Vivek s/o Vasantrao Tatekar
State of Maharashtra and Dr. Arvind s/o Radhyeshyamji Pandit
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal application under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of FIR and criminal proceedings for defamation.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of Crime No. 92/2015 registered at Police Station Umred, Nagpur for offences under Sections 500, 501, 502 read with 34 IPC.
Filing Reason
The applicants published a news item alleging that respondent no. 2, a homeopathic doctor, was prescribing allopathic medicines without qualification, which was claimed to be defamatory.
Issues
Whether the publication of the news item constitutes defamation under Section 499 IPC.
Whether the publication is protected under Exception 1 to Section 499 IPC as being for public good and made in good faith.
Whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC as an abuse of process.
Submissions/Arguments
Applicants argued that the news item was published in public interest after due verification by visiting the clinic as dummy customers, and thus falls under Exception 1 to Section 499 IPC.
Respondent no. 2 argued that the publication was defamatory and made with malice, as the applicants did not verify the facts properly.
Ratio Decidendi
The publication of a news item alleging that a homeopathic doctor was prescribing allopathic medicines without qualification, based on a secret complaint and verification by visiting the clinic as dummy customers, is protected under Exception 1 to Section 499 IPC as it was made in good faith for public good. Continuing the prosecution would be an abuse of process of law.
Judgment Excerpts
By the present application, the applicants have challenged the criminal action started by the respondent no. 1 on the complaint of the respondent no. 2 vide Crime No. 92/2015 and prayed to quash the same.
The applicant no. 1 is editor of a weekly newspaper – 'Pharmacist Times' which is published from Nagpur and Pune and the same is duly registered under the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867.
Smt. Wagh took applicant no. 1 into confidence and both of them visited the clinic as dummy customers posing that Smt. Wagh was suffering from vomiting and tonsillitis.
The court held that the publication was for public good and in good faith, and quashed the proceedings.
Procedural History
The respondent no. 2 filed a complaint leading to registration of Crime No. 92/2015 at Police Station Umred, Nagpur for offences under Sections 500, 501, 502 read with 34 IPC. The applicants then filed Criminal Application (APL) No. 903 of 2015 under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the FIR and proceedings. The High Court reserved judgment on 22/06/2018 and pronounced on 19/07/2018, allowing the application and quashing the proceedings.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 499, 500, 501, 502, 34
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 482
- Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867:
