Burhanuddin Quadri and another vs Md. Shafi Quzzaman and another

This petition u/s 482 of Cr.PC has been filed for quashing the criminal proceedings in CCNo.278 of 1999 on the file of XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in which the petitioners are the accused facing charge u/s 500 of IPC in the complaint filed by the respondent No.1 herein.

The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in the said CC. Petitioner No.1 has been the Chief Executive Officer of the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad and petitioner No.2 has been the Chair Person of Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board. Respondent No.1 herein is an IAS Officer who has been working as Secretary to Government of Andhra Pradesh. He was at the relevant time working as such in the department of Minorities Welfare. During that period some appointments were made in the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board headed by petitioner No.2. On account of discover of prima facie irregularities in those appointments, the Government of Andhra Pradesh handed over the matter to ACB for enquiry. When the matter was under enquiry, petitioner No.1 in collusion with petitioner No.2 got false and baseless defamatory imputations published in Urdu daily news papers i.e., Munsif dated 19-6-1998 and Siasat dated 20-6-1998 against the complainant with malicious and dishonest intention. These were published as press-notes issued by petitioner No.1. The allegations relevant to respondent No.1 herein in the report concerned are as follows:

"Sri Shafiquzzaman the Ex-Secretary to Government Minorities Welfare Department on the instigation of some vested interest submitted a wrong report to the Government on the recruitment of candidates saying that these recruitments are irregular and also got published a report in the press. The Wakf Board is representing the matter before the Hon''ble Chief Minister Sri N. Chandrababu Naidu for taking action against Sri Shafeequzzaman."

The said press note also contains refutation of the allegations that the candidates had to spend money for their appointments and asserts that these allegations have been made to defame the Wakf Board, It also narrates the procedure adopted in selecting candidates. It may be mentioned that earlier to these press-notes, a news report appeared in Eenadu daily news paper under the date line of 17th June, 1998 in which certain allegations in regard to irregularities in selection of candidates including that bribes were involved in the appointments made. It also mentions that Sri Shafiquzzaman (Respondent No.1) Ex-Secretary to Minorities Welfare Department had referred the case to the Chief Minister for taking action in view of the irregular appointments. The press-note referred to above appears to be to controvert to this news paper report.

On a complaint filed by the respondent No. 1 herein incorporating these facts, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of offence u/s 500 of IPC against the petitioners herein which is now challenged.

The learned Counsel for the petitioners-Sri P. Gangaiah Naidu, contends that the allegations said to have been made in the press-note do not make out an offence of defamation as defined u/s 499 of IPC. Section 499 of IPC (to the extent of applicable portions) may be extracted for ready referrence.

"Section 499: Defamation :--Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person.

Explanation 1: xxx xxx xxx

Explanation 2: xxx xxx xxx

Explanation 3: xxx xxx xxx

Explanation 4: No imputation is said to harm a person''s reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly in these estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful."

Various exceptions are engrafted to Section 499 of IPC. The following exceptions, which are relevant to the present case, are extracted for ready reference:

"First exception: Imputation of truth which public good requires to be made or published. - It is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person, if it be for the public good that the imputation should be made or published. Whether or not it is for the public good is a question of fact.

Second Exception: Public conduct of public servants:- It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of a public servant in the discharge of his public functions, or respecting his character, so far as his character appears, in that conduct, and no further."

The learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that the press-note issued by petitioner No.1 was merely intended to refute the allegations in regard to the appointments made in the Wakf Board, which appeared in a news paper report, The purpose of such of refutations was merely to put the record straight and dispel any mis-understanding among the public about the manner of appointments made by the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board and that the petitioners had no intention to defame the respondent No 1.

The learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 on the other hand contends that the imputation that respondent No.1 gave a wrong report to Government and that the said report was given by him at the instance of vested interests harmed the reputation of respondent No.1 who is a senior and high level public servant According to the learned Counsel, the requirement of Section 499 of IPC defining the offence of defamation are satisfied.

It is pertinent to mention here that while dealing with a petition u/s 482 of Cr.PC for quashing the proceedings what is necessary to ascertain is whether the broad frame work of facts as given in the complaint prima facie make out an offence alleged or not. The observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Bajaj Vs. State NCT of Delhi and Others, appears to be relevant.

".....If factual foundation for the offence has been laid in the complaint the Court should not hasten to quash criminal proceedings during investigation stage merely on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated with details. For quashing an FIR (a step which is permitted only in extremely rare cases) the information in the complaint must be so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence."

In this case, there is an allegation that it was respondent No.1 who gave the report to the Government about the irregularities. There is an assertion that the report was factually wrong and is then capped by an allegation that respondent No.1 had given the report at the instance of vested interests.

The learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that the main thrust of the press-note was to refute the allegations made against the Wakf Board in regard to the alleged irregularities in the appointments and that the statement in the press-note that respondent No.1 gave a wrong report at the instance of some vested interests when looked in the back-ground of the facts and in the light of the main purpose of press-note as stated above, does not amount to making imputations against the respondent No.1 of which any reasonable man would take serious notice. This plea seems to be based on the provisions u/s 95 of the IPC which reads as follows:

"95. Act causing slight harm :--Nothing is an offence by reason that it causes, or that it is intend to cause, or that it is known to be likely to cause, any harm, if that harm is so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm."

The learned Counsel for the respondent Sri R. Vijayavardhan Reddy on the other hand vigorously opposes this contention and submits that the damage to the reputation of respondent No.1 was substantial and real which cannot be said to be so slight as any person of ordinary sense and temper would ignore.

What appears from the facts and conlentions raised in this behalf is that there is definite allegation that respondent No.1 had given a wrong report to the Government on the basis of which ACB Enquiry was ordered and that he gave the report at the instance of vested interests.

These allegations may create an impression that a senior public servant of IAS cadre has given a report which is said to be false, not according to the dictates of the requirements of his duty but on a consideration extraneous to those duties. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, such an impression was really capable of being created and whether the harm resulting from such imputation is so slight that law would not take notice of it are matters which have to be decided during the course of trial in the background of facts and circumstances brought on record.

In this case, it cannot be said that there are no allegations in the press-report which can even remotely be considered as constituting an offence u/s 499 of IPC.

Whether in the light of other facts and circumstances brought on record, the allegations may not amount to defamation or whether they are covered by any of the exceptions are matters which cannot be dissected and viewed microscopically while considering a petition u/s 482 of Cr.PC for quashing the proceedings.

Considering the circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that the facts of the case do not fall under any of the guidelines enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of R.S. Raghunath Vs. State of Karnataka and another, , to justify invoking Section 482 of Cr.PC for quahsing the proceedings.

However, it may be mentioned here that the press-note in question is said to have been given by the Executive Officer of the Wakf Board-petitioner No. 1 herein though the complaint mentions that accused Nos. 1 and 2 (petitioners herein) got the press-note published. It is stated by the learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 during the arguments that the petitioner No.2 is the Chair Person and he may to be directly connected with the issuing of the press-notes. Under the circumstances, there is no justification for continuing the criminal proceedings against the 2nd petitioner.

In the result, the proceedings in CC No.278 of 1999 on the file of XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate as far as petitioner No.2 is concerned shall stand quashed but the proceedings will continue as far as petitioner No.1 is concerned.

The petition is ordered accordingly.