M.K. Mittal, J.@mdashThis application has been filed for quashing the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 5332/2005 Sudesh Sharma @ Swadesh
Sharma v. Pradeep Kansal and Others u/s 500 IPC P.S. Modi Nagar. District Ghaziabad, pending in the Court of ACJM Court No. 8,
Ghaziabad.
2. Heard Sri Ramesh Sinha Learned Counsel for the applicant, Sri Prem Chandra Learned Counsel for the opposite party, learned AGA and
perused the material on record.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the opposite party No. 2 Sudesh Sharma @ Swadesh Sharma filed a complaint u/s 500 IPC against the
applicant and others alleging that he is a respectable person of Modi Nagar and had recently joined Congress Party and was a devoted party
worker and he also contested the election of the chairman of the Municipal Board and was elected by the people with thumping majority. The
accused Pradeep Kansal was also in Congress party and was jealous against him and wanted to lower his position by making false allegations
against him. With that view the accused held the press conference on 10th August 2005 at his residence in Modi Nagar and made malicious and
defamatory statements against him regarding the murder of one Mahesh @ Bheem. He even declared him to be a murderer and a thief and a
dishonest person who had come to loot the citizens of Modi Nagar. The statements made by the accused were given due publicity and were not
only printed in the newspapers but there was telecast also on three television channels. This reduced the status of the complainant in the eyes of the
citizens of Modi Nagar and several persons including Arvind Kumar Agarwal, Asharam Tyagi, Pramod Kaushik, Ved Prakash Sharma, Nand
Kishore Sharma telephoned him and told him that they would have no relations with him. This lowered his prestige and status in society and it was
the result of the defamatory allegations made by the accused. According to the complainant the allegations were made by the accused intentionally
and without any basis. The learned Magistrate examined the complainant and his witnesses and finding a prima facie case, directed to summon the
accused u/s 500 IPC by order dated 28.11.2006. Feeling aggrieved, the present application has been filed.
4. The case of the applicant is that he is a respectable person of society and is a member of the Congress Party for last 24 years. The complainant
was earlier member of Samajwadi Party and then he joined BJP and thereafter the Congress Party. Hakim Singh father of deceased Mahesh @
Bheem had prayed the applicant on 2nd August 2005 and had given him an application in which it was categorically stated that the complainant
was responsible for the murder of his son and in order to assist Hakim Singh and to bring the correct tact''s to the notice of the concerned
authorities the applicant organised the press conference. The contention of the applicant is that the statements as made by him cannot be treated to
be defamatory and it was done by him in good faith to assist Hakim Singh.
5. The complainant filed counter affidavit and alleged that Hakim Singh had not given any application to the accused applicant and he, acting out of
inter party rivalry and in order to defame him, made false and frivolous statements and lowered his position in the society. The opposite party also
contended that the accused made the statements deliberately and intentionally to harm his reputation and it lowered his status in the eyes of the
citizen of Modi Nagar.
6. The relevant portion of section 499 IPC which defines defamation, reads as under -
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.
7. The act is not defamatory if it is covered by one of the exceptions as mentioned in this Section. Learned Counsel for the applicant has
contended that the applicant acted in good faith and therefore, his act is covered by 8th exception. This exception provides that 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. Learned Counsel for the applicant has contended that since the father of the deceased had given him an application and in
order to assist him and to bring the correct facts to the notice of the authorities, he had organised the press conference. The copy of this letter has
been field as Annexure No. 2. This application has been addressed to the Chief Minister and the copies have been forwarded to different
authorities. However no copy of this letter has been forwarded to the applicant. Moreover the applicant was not the person in authority nor did he
make any statement to any authority as no such authority is alleged to have been present in the press conference and therefore, if any statement
was made by him in the press conference it was not covered by this exception. Moreover the allegations as made and as averred in the complaint
snow that in any case even if he was making statements to any authority they could not have been treated to have been made in good faith.
8. Learned Counsel for the applicant has cited the case of Jawaharlal Darda and Others v. Manohar Rao Ganpat Rao Kapsikar and Another
1998 (2) ACJ 47 (S.C.) : 1998(36) ACC 837(SC). In that case news item was published on the basis of the statement made by the minister
disclosing misappropriation of Government fund by certain persons including the accused therein and it was held by the Hon''ble Apex Court that it
is quite apparent that what the accused had published in its newspaper was an accurate and true report of the proceedings of the Assembly.
Involvement of the respondent was disclosed by the preliminary enquiry made by the Government. If the accused, bona fide believing the version
of the Minister to be true, published the report in good faith, it cannot be said that they intended to harm the reputation of the complainant.
9. In that case the statement as published was based on the authoritative statement made by the minister in the assembly and therefore it was held
to be in good faith. But in the present case the facts are entirely different arid this ruling does not help the accused.
10. In the circumstances, I come to the conclusion that the learned Magistrate has rightly summoned the accused and the application is devoid of
merits and is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.