Meenu Betab vs T.K.Ganjoo

Vinod Chatterji Koul, J

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed against order dated 19.03.2018 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Special Mobile Magistrate, Jammu whereby

cognizance under Section 499/500 RPC has been taken by the learned Magistrate on the complaint filed by the respondent and process issued against

the petitioner for appearance.

The order is challenged primarily on the ground that the complaint does not disclose any offence cognizable under Section 499/500 RPC as the

allegations levelled in the complaint do not constitute offence under Section 499/500 RPC having none of the ingredients thereof. It is submitted that

for defamation can be alleged when the words either spoken or intended to be read or by signs or by visible 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 a person. It is submitted that the only imputation and allegation which has been made

basis for filing a complaint before a Magistrate is that the petitioner has filed a complaint against the respondent in which allegation of atrocities and

harassment has been levelled against the respondent and in which complaint she has stated that the respondent has falsely implicated the husband of

the petitioner in a misappropriation case in his capacity as Manager of the School.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner has used foul language against the respondent in front

of the office bearers and called him thief, dog, illiterate and corrupt due to which the reputation of the respondent was lowered in the eyes of all office

bearers, as such, the ingredients of Section 499 do exist for taking cognizance by the Magistrate and the revision petition deserves rejection as the

petitioner is well within her right to appear before the Magistrate and produce her defence during the trial.

In order to appreciate the arguments, it would be appropriate to go through the relevant provisions being Section 499 RPC which, for facility of

reference, is reproduced thus:

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 expected, to defame that personâ€​.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and going through the material place on record and after going through the provisions of law, it can

easily be said that the complaint filed by the respondent before the Magistrate do not constitute the ingredients of Section 499 RPC. To constitute an

offence punishable under Section 499 RPC, the complaint and the statement recorded must satisfy the ingredients of such offence. The complaint,

when read as a whole, does not state anywhere that the word ‘spoken’ had lowered the reputation of the complainant in the estimation of

public. The allegations which have been made in the complaint do not, in any way, fall within the purview of the provisions of Section 499 RPC. These

allegations made in the complaint are with regard to the official functioning and performance of their duties. Even if some words have been spoken

those would not be construed to be such words as would ordinarily effect the reputation of any body and lower his/her reputation in the estimation of

public. What is alleged to have been said by the petitioner can, at the most, constitute a specific offence under the Penal Code, but would not be

defamation in order to attract the provisions of Section 499/500 RPC.

The trial Court appears to have issued the process without going through the provisions of Section 499 RPC and without satisfying itself whether

the allegations made in the complaint and in the statement would amount to a defamation or not. The trial Court while taking cognizance of the

complaint and issuing process has failed to exercise its jurisdiction in accordance with law. One of the allegations is regarding the abuses that would

amount to an offence under the provisions of Penal Code other than the provisions of Section 499 RPC and in such a situation when the ingredients of

Section 499 RPC are not satisfied by the complainant and his witnesses, taking cognizance and issuing process would amount to abuse of process of

law.

That apart, whatsoever allegations have been alleged those are alleged and admitted to be taken place within the premises of Maharaja Harisingh

Agricultural Collegiate School, Nagbani, Jammu where both the petitioner and respondents are serving in different capacities. There are allegations of

filing of complaints by both the parties against each other at different times and before different authorities of the School. There are also allegations

and counter allegations of mismanagement and harassment. All these things would not constitute ingredients of Section 499 because the authorities of

the Institute where the activities of harassment took place, was well within its rights to take appropriate action.

Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed, the order impugned is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

A copy of this order be sent to the trial Magistrate along with record for consigning the same to the records.