SOHAN RAJ Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated June 8, 1989, passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sheoganj, for quashing the order taking cognizance for the offence under Section 500 IPC.

(2.) COMPLAINANT Ranjeet Mal filed a complaint in the Court of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sheoganj, against the petitioner Sohan Lal under Section 500 IPC. It was alleged in the complaint that the accused Sohan Lal, on April 2, 1988, sent a letter from Bangalore by registered post, in which certain allegations were made against the complainant which are defamatory in nature and on reading this letter by other persons in the locality, where he commands a good reputation, his prestige republication has been damaged. The complaint was submitted by the complainant in the Court on May 25, 1989. The learned Magistrate, alter submission of the complaint, records the statement of the complainant Ranjeet Mal under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and those of his witnesses Chhagan Lal and Shesh Mal Bhandari under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate, after considering the complaint and the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. by his order dated June 2, 1989, took cognizance against the petitioner and issued process. In pursuance to the process issued by the court, the accused petition appeared before the learned Judicial Magistrate on August 29, 1989, and the learned Magistrate stated the particulars of the offence of which he is accused and asked him whether he pleads guilty or has any defence to make. The accused did not plead guilty. It was stated in the substance of accusation that the accused, on April 2, 1988, wrote a letter containing some defamatory language which has been read by the complainant and certain witnesses, which is punishable under Section 500 IPC. The petitioner has, therefore, filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings pending in the Court of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sheoganj, as well as the order June 2, 1989, taking cognizance against the petitioner.

(3.) IN order to bring the defamatory imputation within the meaning of Section 499 IPC, the alleged imputation should have been made or published. The words 'Makes or publishes any imputation', appearing in Section 499 IPC conjetively connote 'to make public'. To constitute an offence of defamatory, thus, according to Section 499 IPC, there must be making of or publication of any imputation concerning any person and the making and publication may be with intent to harm or knowingly or having reasons to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of such person. Unless there is a publication, there can be no offence of defamation committed. When a letter is sent by a registered post to the person defamed, then there is no publication. In order to constitute an offence of defamation, it must be communicated to a third person because what is intended by imputation is to arouse the hostility of others. If a person merely writes defamatory words and communicates to the person defamed only, it does not constitute an offence under Section 499 IPC. The question, therefore, emerging in such an offence is whether the libel, in fact, has been communicated to third person or not? It is not enough that the libeller posted the letter to the person defamed. In the present case, even as per the case of the complainant, the petitioner wrote a defamatory letter to the complainant, which was sent by registered post. The accused did not make any imputation before any third person. It is the complainant himself who showed the letter to the two witnesses produced by him and the other persons of the community where his reputation has been damaged. The publication of the letter was not made by the accused -petitioner. Sending of the letter containing the defamatory matter by the accused to the complainant by a registered post cannot be said to be publication as would render the accused liable for the punishment for defamation as the letter cannot have injured the complainant in the estimation of others to whom they were not made known. As the accused had not made the alleged defamatory letter public, therefore it can not be said that the accused had committed any offence under Section 499 IPC, which is punishable under Section 500 IPC. The learned Magistrate, while taking the cognizance against the petitioner accused and proceeding with the trial, has not applied the judicious mind in seeing whether the allegations against the accused constitutes the offence, for which the learned Magistrate has taken the cognizance. As the allegations made in the complaint as well as in the statement recorded by the learned Magistrate to under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. do not constitute the offence for which the cognizance has been taken, therefore, continuing of the trial will amount to abuse of the process of the Court. It has, also, been held by the Supreme Court in The State of Haryana v. Choudhary Bhajan Lal : 1992CriLJ527 that if the unconlroverted allegation made in the FIR or the complaint and the evidence collected in support of the allegations do not disclose the commission of any offence and make -out a case against the accused then the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised for quashing the proceedings. In this view of the matter, 1 am of the opinion that the complaint made and the evidence produced by the complainant do not disclose the commission of any offence by the accused.