Bachcha Rai vs The State of Bihar and Another

Abhijit Sinha, J.—The petitioner herein is aggrieved by order dated 30.3.2005 passed by Shri K.P Singh, Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj in Complaint Case No. 1787 of 2004 whereby he has taken cognizance of offence u/s 500 Indian Penal Code as also the order dated 16.7.2005 passed by Sri Bipul Sinha, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gopalganj, whereby the petition of the petitioner u/s 255 Cr.P.C. for his acquittal has been rejected and he has been directed to be physically present on the next date for hearing the substance of accusation and has prayed for quashing of the order taking cognizance as also the entire criminal proceeding. The short question which falls for consideration is as to whether in the given situation where the parties are pattidars and cases are pending between them filing of a false case bearing Uchkagaon P.S. Case No. 14 of 2004 u/s 379 I.P.C. by one of the Pattidars against the other could in any way give rise to an offence u/s 500 I.P.C.

As it appears Bachcha Rai, the petitioner herein, had filed the aforesaid Uchkagaon P.S. Case alleging, inter alia that Chandeshwar Singh, Opposite Party No. 2 herein, had stolen his buffalow but the police after due investigation submitted final form stating that the case of theft appears to be true but baseless. Aggrieved thereby the complainant-opposite party No. 2 filed Complaint Case No. 1787 of 2004 alleging, inter alia, that Bachcha Rai had intentionally and maliciously filed a false and concocted case with an intention to harm his reputation and the learned Magistrate after holding an enquiry u/s 202 Cr.P.C. took cognizance as stated hereinbefore.

It is by now well settled that the essence of the offence of defamation consists in the tendency to cause that description of mental pain which is felt by a person who knows himself to be the object of unfavourable sentiments of his fellow creatures and these inconveniences to which a person who is the object of such unfavourable sentiment is exposed.

In case of Bira Gareri vs. Dulhin Somalia (AIR 1962 Patna 229) it was held that in India giving information to the police of a cognizable offence with the object of setting the law in motion for the police to investigate and institute the case to be tried in a court of law is a necessary step to be taken in the conduct of a legal proceeding and statements made in such an information must be absolutely privileged. The mere fact that a final report was submitted in the case would not make any difference. The question as to whether the statement made in an information to the police of a cognizable offence is absolutely privileged or not would not depend upon the future event of the starting of the judicial proceedings.

Due regard being had to the aforesaid decision the petitioner herein was entitled to a protection under the Eighth Exception of Section 499 which lays down as follows:

Eighth Exception.-Accusation preferred in good faith to authorised person.-It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject-matter of accusation.

From the aforesaid circumstances it appears to me that the allegations made in the present complaint do not satisfy the ingredients for making out a case u/s 500 I.P.C. It would, therefore, follow as a corollary that the complaint and the impugned order of cognizance passed on the basis thereof were misconceived and bad in law. The cognizance order and the resultant proceedings are accordingly, set aside. In the result, the application is allowed.