V NARAYANA BHAT Vs. S SUBBANNA BHAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the plaintiff. The suit was for recovery of damages of Rs.1000 for defamation. The defendant-respondent presented a complaint on 28-11-1964 to the Station House Officer, Puttur Police Station, imputing an offence under S.392 IPC against the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that the defamatory statements contained in the complaint brought him disrepute and Infamy in society. He alleged that Police Officers came to his house, questioned him about the contents of the complaint and wanted to search his hpusa. He also alleged that he had to go with the police and remain in the Police Station till the evening and had to visit the Police Station on several occasions on account of this complaint. The defendant admitted having lodged a complaint against the plaintiff to the police and asserted that the plaintiff along with other parsons mentioned in the complaint petition committed acts attributed to them in the complaint. He also pleaded that the statements mada in the complaint were made in the interests of law and order and to seek justice. The trial Court held that the complaint filed by the defendant is not false or frivolous or vexatious to the knowledgq of the defendant that the plaintiff failed to show that he was defamed in any way by the allegations in the complaint and dismissed the suit without going into the question of quantum of damages. The lower appellate Court held that the imputations made in the complapt petition are defamatory per se. It further held that the defendant's plea of justification by prqof had not been substantiated. But it came to the conclusion that the statements contained in the complaint are protected by absolute privilege and that the question of malice or want of justification does not arise. Hence it confirmed the decision of the trial Court.

(2.) The complaint was enquired into by the Policq and found to be false. Thereafter the Police prosecuted the defendant for filing a falsa complaint and he was convicted but the conviction was set aside in appeal.

(3.) It is contended by Mr.Ganapathi Bhat appearing for the plaintiff- appellant that the statements contained in the complaint filed by the defendant to the Pqlice are not cqvered by absolute privilege and that the defendant could claim only qualified privilege for the same. It is therefore urged by him that the defendant must prove that he made the statements in good faith and that if he succeeds in proving the same then the burden shifts on to the plaintiffs to prove malice and that the finding of the lower appellate Court is erroneous. The question for decision in this appeal is whether the defendant could claim absolute privilege for the statements made in the complaint or only qualified privilege for the same.