MOHAN CHARAN NAIK Vs. SWAYAMBHU NATH KHANDAGIRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. for quashing the order dated 12. 6. 1984 passed, by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Birmaharajpur, in I. C. C. No. 9/84 by which cognizance was taken against the petitioner under Sections 500 and 501, IPC. and also for quashing the criminal proceeding (I. C. C. No. 9/34).

(2.) THE opposite party filed a complaint against the petitioner, who is a Lecturer in English in Birmaharajpur College, and one Srikrushna Prasad Pradhan, the Principal of the said College. The allegation in the complaint petition was that the opposite party is a practising advocate and press -representative of the newspaper 'Dharitri'. It is alleged that on the annual day meeting of Birmaharajpur College held on 23. 4. 1984, the petitioner made some aspersons affecting the reputation and dignity of the opposite party. So the opposite party wrote a letter requesting the President of the Managing Committee and the Principal of the College to issue suitable instructions to the petitioner not to indulge in such activity. On 6. 5. 1984 in the evening, in the presence of some persons the petitioner threatened the opposite party to take action against him and harm his reputation. It is further alleged that the petitioner, as the English Lecturer, set questions for the First Year I. A. students with the connivance of the Principal which was released on 7. 5. 1984. In the said question, there was a passage in Oriya, which was to be translated into English, the contents of which were meant to harm the reputation of the opposite party and to lower his dignity in the estimation of the public. After recording the initial statement of the complainant, the Magistrate postponed the the issue of processes against the accused persons and conducted an inquiry under Section 202, Cr. P. C. Ultimately, by order dated 12. 6. 1984 he took cognizance of the offence under Sections 500 and 501, IPC, against the petitioner and under Section 501 IPC, against the Principal. Subsequently, the offence against the Principal was compounded and he was acquitted. The petitioner has now challenged the above order dated 12. 6. 1984 passed by the Magistrate.

(3.) DEFAMATION has been defined in Section 499, IPC, which is as follows :