AMRIT LAL BATRA Vs. DIVAKAR PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .The petition seeks quashing of the complaint u/s 500 of the Indian Penal Code and the order dated 23.4.2001 by which petitioner along with others have been summoned to stand trial for an offence u/s 499 & 500 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant/Respondent No.1 Diwakar Pandey filed the complaint alleging inter alia that he was serving in the Adya Katyayani Shakti Peeth Mandir as a pujari, that the services of the complainant and some of his colleagues were terminated by the Adya Katyayani Shakti Peeth Mandir Trust/accused No.1 that the complainant and his peers approached the trustees of the temple including the petitioner (being the Chairman of the Trust) for fulfilment of some legitimate demands, that the trustees nurtured a grudge against the petitioner and his colleagues because of those demands, that because of such grudge the complainant was roped in a case u/s 107/151 Cr.P.C. and another under The SCHEDULED CASTES AND THE SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989 and also pasted written notice at the entrance of the temple notifying that the complainant was debarred from entering the temple and that if he was found inside the temple suitable action would be taken against him and that the language of the notification is defamatory. The complainant therefore prayed that the accused No.1 (petitioner herein) which is the Trust of the Adya Katyayani Shakti Peeth Mandir and the office bearers of the Trust who were the accused No.2 to 7 in the complaint be summoned to stand trial for the offence u/s 500 IPC. By the order dated 23.4.2001, the Metropolitan Magistrate of Delhi observed that there was sufficient ground to summon the accused u/s 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code and therefore ordered issue of summons.

(2.) Before proceeding further it will be appropriate to have a look at Sections 499 & 500 which defines the offence of defamation. The same is as under:- ?o Section 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 expected, to defame that person. Explanation 1.- It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives. Explanation 2. - It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such. Explanation 3. - An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation. Explanation 4. - No imputation is said to harm a person's reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful. Illustrations (a) A says - ?oZ is an honest man; he never stole B's watch ? ; intending to cause it to be believed that Z did steal B's watch. This is defamation, unless it fall within one of the exceptions. (b) A is asked who stole B's watch. A points to Z, intending to cause it to be believed that Z stole B's watch. This is defamation unless it fall within one of the exceptions. (c) A draws a picture of Z running away with B's watch, intending it to be believed that Z stole B's watch. This is defamation, unless it fall within one of the exceptions. First Exception.- Imputation of truth which public good requires to be made or published.- It is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person, if it be for the public good that the imputation should be made or published. Whether or not it is for the public good is a question of fact. Second Exception.- Public conduct of public servants.- It is not defamation to express in a good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of a public servant in the discharge of his public functions, or respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further. .......................... Section 500: Punishment for defamation:- Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. ?

(3.) It is to be seen that to constitute any defamation the first essential thing is an imputation. The imputation by itself is not enough. There has to be an intention to harm the reputation of such person against whom the imputation is made. In the present case, the English version of notice which has allegedly caused defamation is as under:- ?o SHRI ADYA KATYAYNI SHAKTI PEETH MANDIR TRUST CHATTARPUR, NEW DELHI ?" 110 030 DATED : 3-7-1998 PUBLIC NOTICE The management of Shri Adya Katyayni Shakti Peeth Mandir Trust, Chattarpur, New Delhi ?" 110 030, has decided that the following ?oSevadars ? are debarred from entering into the Temple Premises as also other place of the Temple with effect from 4.7.1998 (Saturday). In case, the following ?oSevadars ? try to enter forcibly into the Temple Complex, which shall be an unauthorised attempt on their part and legal action shall be taken against them. S/Shri 1. Bhaskarananda 2.Raghunath Jha 3.Anjani Mishra 4.Ram Mehar 5.Sachan Tiwari 6.Subrahmaniam 7.Diwakar Pandey 8.Ramesh Kumar -I 9.Kaptain Singh 10.Rambir Singh By order of Management Committee Shri Adya Katyayni Shakti Peeth Mandir Trust Secretary ?