KISHORE BALKRISHNA NANDversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

                  [2023] 11 S.C.R. 34 : 2023 INSC 675



                            CASE DETAILS

                   KISHORE BALKRISHNA NAND
                                     v.
                STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
                   (Criminal Appeal No. 2291 of 2011)
                            AUGUST 02, 2023
          [J. B. PARDIWALA AND MANOJ MISRA, JJ.]

                             HEADNOTES

     Issue for consideration : Whether the allegations made in the
complaint in the good faith addressed to the lawful authority-Sub Divisional
Magistrate, make out an offence of defamation under Section 500 IPC or not.
      Penal Code, 1860 – s.499, eighth exception, s. 500 – Accusation
preferred in good faith – When not defamation:
      Held : Accusation in the complaint preferred in good faith against
any person, to a person in lawful authority with regard to the subject-matter
of accusation, is not a defamation – By perusing the allegations made in the
complaint, no case for defamation made out – Impugned order passed by
the High Court set aside – Original order passed by the Magistrate issuing
summons, quashed and set aside. [Paras 16 and 17]

       OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
              ORDER AND APPEARANCES

      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
2291 of 2011.
     From the Judgment and Order dated 03.02.2010 of the High Court
of Bombay at Nagpur in CRLWP No. 676 of 2009.
      Appearances:
      Satyajit A Desai, Anshuman Ashok, Siddharth Gautam, Abhinav K.
Mutyalwar, Gajanan N Tirthkar, Vijay Raj Singh Chouhan, Ms. Anagha S.
Desai, Advs. for the Appellant.
                                  34
                 KISHORE BALKRISHNA NAND v.                               35
                STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

      Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande,
Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Bharat Bagla, Sourav Singh, Aditya Krishna,
Advs. for the Respondents.

       JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT

                                 ORDER
       1. The respondent No.2 (original complainant) although served with
the notice issued by this Court, yet has chosen not to remain present before
this Court, either in-person or through an advocate, and oppose this appeal.
       2. This is an appeal at the instance of the original accused summoned
for the offence of defamation punishable under Section 500 of the Indian
Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”) and is directed against the order passed by
the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, dated 03.02.2010 in
Criminal Writ Petition No.676 of 2009, by which the High Court rejected the
writ petition filed by the appellant – Kishore Balkrishna Nand and thereby
declined to quash the order of issue of process by the Magistrate for the
offence of defamation.
       3. It appears from the materials on record that the appellant herein
lodged a complaint in writing addressed to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate
(for short, “the SDM”) stating that the respondent no.2 herein (original
complainant) had put up a shop by encroaching upon some land. In the
complaint. the appellant is said to have further stated that such shop put up
by the complainant was creating nuisance, as many anti-social elements
and road romeos had started visiting the said shop and were creating all
sorts of problems.
      4. The SDM upon receipt of the complaint dated 25.01.2002 filed
by the appellant issued notice to the complainant. While the proceedings
before the SDM were pending, the complainant thought fit to lodge a private
complaint in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Worora, Chandrapur, State
of Maharashtra for the offence of defamation. The learned Magistrate took
cognizance on the said complaint and issued process. The cognizance for
the offence of defamation was taken by the Magistrate on the basis of the
averments said to have been made by the appellant in his written complaint
addressed to the SDM, referred to above.
36            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2023] 11 S.C.R.


       5. As the record reveals, the appellant thereafter moved an application
before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate with a prayer that the order of
issue of process be recalled. The Magistrate concerned recalled the order. The
complainant being aggrieved by such order of recall passed by the Magistrate,
challenged the same before the Sessions Court by filing a revision application.
The revision application was allowed and the order recalling the order of issue
of process was quashed. In such circumstances, the appellant went before the
High Court. In the High Court, the appellant thought fit not to press his petition
and withdrew the same.
       6. Eight years thereafter the appellant thought fit to challenge the original
order of issue of process before the High Court. The High Court without entering
into the merits of the matter, declined to entertain such petition only on the
ground of delay.
       7. In such circumstances referred to above, the appellant is here before
this Court with the present appeal.
       8. Mr. Anshuman Ashok, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant
vehemently submitted that the learned Magistrate committed a serious error in
taking cognizance on a complaint, which fails to disclose commission of any
offence. According to him even if the entire case, as put up by the complainant, is
accepted or believed to be true, none of the ingredients to constitute the offence
of defamation as defined under Section 499 of the IPC and made punishable
under Section 500 of the IPC are disclosed. He pointed out that his client
(appellant), in good faith, brought to the notice of the SDM that the complainant
had encroached upon some portion of the land and had put up a shop which was
creating nuisance. This, according to the learned counsel, would not constitute
any offence of defamation. He submitted that even otherwise since the alleged
defamatory words or statements are said to have been made in a complaint made
in writing addressed to a public authority like SDM and not made public, the
same would not attract the rigours of Section 499 of the IPC.
      9. In such circumstances as above, the learned counsel prayed that there
being merit in his appeal, the same be allowed and the criminal proceedings
be quashed.
      10. We also heard Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, the learned counsel
appearing for the State. However, this is a case of a private complaint. The
                 KISHORE BALKRISHNA NAND v.                                 37
                STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

State has hardly any role to play. Still learned the counsel assisted us on the
question of law.
      ANALYSIS:
       11. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties
and having gone through the materials on record, the only question
that falls for our consideration is whether the allegations made in the
complaint addressed to the SDM make out the offence under Section
500 IPC or not?
      12. Section 499 of the IPC reads, thus:
      “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.”
      13. Eighth Exception to Section 499, to which reliance has been
placed by the learned counsel, reads as under:
      “Eighth Exception.—Accusation preferred in good faith to
authorised person.—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.”
      14. The word “good faith” has been defined in Section 52 of the
IPC to mean:
      “52. ‘Good faith’.—Nothing is said to be done or believed in
‘good faith’ which is done or believed without due care and attention.”
      15. We are of the view that no case is made out to put the
appellant to trial for the alleged offence. There is no defamation as such.
      16. Exception 8 to Section 499 clearly indicates that it is not a
defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to
any of those who have lawful authority over that person with regard
to the subject-matter of accusation. Even otherwise by perusing the
38             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2023] 11 S.C.R.


allegations made in the complaint, we are satisfied that no case for
defamation has been made out.
      17. In the overall view of the matter, we are convinced that the appeal
deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The impugned order passed
by the High Court is hereby set aside. As a consequence of the same, the
original order passed by the Magistrate issuing summons, is also hereby
quashed and set aside. The criminal proceedings in the form of Criminal
Case No.247 of 2002 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Worora, Chandrapur, Maharashtra stand terminated.
       18. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

Headnotes prepared by:                                           Appeal allowed.
Nidhi Jain