Dileep Kumar Singh vs State Of Bihar And Anr

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

The petitioner has moved the Court under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the judgment and order

dated 22.02.2018 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 2016 (CIS No. 102 of 2016) by the Additional Sessions Judge, VIII, Gopalganj by which he

has dismissed the appeal with modification in the judgment and order of sentence and conviction dated 29.06.2016 passed by the Additional Chief

Judicial Magistrate, IV Gopalganj in Complaint Case No. 1524 of 2007 (Registration No. 4074 of 2016) by which the sentence under Section 500 of

the Indian Penal Code for undergoing two years imprisonment and Rs. 5,000/- fine has been modified to payment of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation by

the petitioner and for furnishing probation bond of Rs. 5,000/- for good conduct for a period of two years.

The petitioner had filed Complaint Case No. 1929 of 2006 against the opposite party no. 2, his wife and mother under Sections 302/34 of the Indian

Penal Code alleging that they had killed the husband of the maternal uncle of the petitioner. The said news was published in the local daily newspaper

‘Danik Jagran’ on 06.12.2006. The complaint case filed by the petitioner was ultimately dismissed. The opposite party no. 2 then filed the

present complaint case alleging defamation which upon trial resulted in a judgment and order of conviction and sentence and the appeal filed by the

petitioner was also dismissed with modification in the sentence.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that first of all the publication in the newspaper was neither by the petitioner nor at his behest and, thus,

he was not instrumental in any way in making public the filing of the complaint case filed by him. Further, it was submitted that a bona fide cause

before a Court of law even if dismissed would not give a cause of action, much less under Sections 499/500 of the Indian Penal Code for defamation

to the aggrieved for the same cannot be stretched to bring it under the ambit of the definition of defamation under Section 499 of the Indian Penal

Code. It was submitted that at best, the remedy available to the opposite party was to file complaint under Sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal

Code for lodging of false information and making false charge. It was further submitted that the reporter and the publication not having been made

party, the petitioner could not straightaway be charged under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel submitted that even in the

definition of defamation under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, the Fourth exception is with regard to publication of reports of proceedings of

Courts. It was submitted that the complaint case being filed in the Court would thus be covered under such Fourth exception.

Learned APP fairly submitted that the conviction under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code is not justified in the facts and circumstances of the

present case.

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 was also not in a position to defend the orders impugned or filing of the complaint case by the opposite

party no. 2.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds that the orders of the

trial Court as well as the appellate Court cannot be sustained in law.

The Court finds substance in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the complaint case itself was misconceived as it was not the

petitioner who had got any article printed in the newspaper. Further and more importantly, even the newspaper report was with regard to the fact of a

complaint case being filed by the petitioner against the opposite party no. 2 and his other family members. Such reporting of a correct fact cannot be

brought into the ambit of the definition of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code so as to make such act punishable under Section 500 of the Indian

Penal Code.

For reasons aforesaid, the application is allowed. The judgment and orders dated 22.02.2018 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 102 of 2016 (CIS No. 102 of

2016) by the Additional Sessions Judge, VIII, Gopalganj, as well as 29.06.2016 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, IV, Gopalganj in

Complaint Case No. 1524 of 2007 (Registration No. 4074 of 2016), stand quashed.