2010 (5) TMI 815 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether or not in the light of the allegations as projected in the complaint against the appellants it was a fit case where the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code should have quashed the complaint against the appellants?

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the High Court erred in declining to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash the complaint.
2. Whether the complaint lacked the basic ingredients of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. Whether the publication "Word of Caution" was defamatory within the meaning of Section 499 IPC.
4. Whether the appellants were entitled to protection under the Tenth Exception to Section 499 IPC.
5. Whether the High Court was justified in not quashing the complaint under Section 482 of the Code.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
The Supreme Court noted that the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code are to be exercised sparingly, carefully, and cautiously to prevent abuse of the process of the court or to secure the ends of justice. The Court emphasized that these powers should not be used arbitrarily and are meant to prevent injustice. The Court cited previous judgments, including R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab and Dinesh Dutt Joshi v. State of Rajasthan, to highlight the circumstances under which the High Court can exercise its inherent powers.

2. Basic Ingredients of Section 499 IPC:
To constitute defamation under Section 499 IPC, there must be an imputation made with the intention of harming, or knowing or having reason to believe that it will harm, the reputation of the person about whom it is made. The Court emphasized that the offence of defamation is the harm caused to the reputation of a person, and it is sufficient to show that the accused intended or knew or had reason to believe that the imputation would harm the complainant's reputation.

3. Defamatory Nature of "Word of Caution":
The Court examined the allegations in the complaint, which stated that the appellants did not publish the full text of the interim injunction granted by the Delhi High Court and falsely claimed sole global recognition of its CFA designation. The complaint alleged that this omission and the subsequent publication were done with malicious intent to harm the reputation of the respondent. The Court noted that the publication omitted critical parts of the interim order, which could portray the respondent in a bad light and harm its reputation.

4. Protection under the Tenth Exception to Section 499 IPC:
The Tenth Exception to Section 499 IPC provides that it is not defamation to convey a caution in good faith for the good of the person to whom it is conveyed or for the public good. The Court noted that the appellants claimed the publication was in public interest and aimed at protecting those planning to join the CFA course. However, the Court emphasized that the burden of proving "good faith" and "public good" lies on the accused, and this can only be determined through evidence. The Court found that the stage for recording evidence had not been reached, making it difficult to determine whether the appellants acted in good faith and for public good.

5. Justification for Not Quashing the Complaint:
The Court held that the High Court was justified in refusing to quash the complaint under Section 482 of the Code. The Court noted that the allegations in the complaint prima facie constituted an offence under Section 499 IPC, and the determination of whether the appellants' actions fell within the Tenth Exception required evidence. The Court emphasized that it was not appropriate to quash the complaint at this stage without a thorough examination of the facts and evidence.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the High Court was right in refusing to quash the complaint under Section 500 IPC. The Court emphasized that nothing said by the High Court or the Supreme Court should be construed as an expression of a final opinion on the merits of the complaint.

← Previous Next →