Sanchayita Lahkar

The Calcutta High court exercising its Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction, Single Bench of Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta, quashed the proceedings arising out of a complaint under Sections 500/506/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The proceedings were quashed in relation to a petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, by the accused persons seeking relief from prosecution.

The petitioners, who are local residents and active contributors to the functioning of a village educational institution, filed the revisional application to quash the proceedings of C.R. Case No. 542 of 2013. The case originated from a complaint lodged by the opposite party no. 1 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Burdwan, under Sections 500 (defamation), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code.

Also Read: "Supreme Court Criticises 'Casual and Cursory' Quashing of Cheating Case, Orders Trial Under Section 420 IPC: 'Least Expected Was Reasoned Assessment'"

The background of the dispute relates to a mass petition submitted in the year 2013 by 287 villagers, including the petitioners, to the Chief Minister of West Bengal and the Minister of Technical Education Department. The complaint concerned the conduct of the complainant, who had assumed charge as the Superintendent of an institution called Satish Chandra Shilpa Bidyalaya, a branch of 'Siksha Niketan' founded by the late Bijoy Kumar Bhattacharya, a renowned educationist and freedom fighter.

The petition alleged multiple acts of misconduct on the part of the complainant, including compelling students to attend political meetings, consuming intoxicants with students, misappropriation of school funds, appointment of unsuitable individuals to key positions, and association with antisocial elements. The petitioners contended that their intention was solely to bring these issues to the attention of competent authorities to ensure the welfare of students and the institution.

According to the petitioners, the mass complaint was confidentially submitted and not intended for public circulation. However, despite the confidential nature, the complainant initiated criminal proceedings alleging defamation, criminal intimidation, and conspiracy. The petitioners argued that the allegations in the complaint do not fulfil the required ingredients of the offences mentioned.

Senior Counsel Mr. Rajdeep Mazumder, along with Mr. Pinaki Ranjan Chakraborty, Ms. Triparna Roy, and Mr. Soumya Raha, appeared for the petitioners. They submitted that the complaint is mala fide, motivated, and amounts to an abuse of process of law. The written complaint, they argued, was an effort to stifle an enquiry initiated by appropriate authorities based on the mass petition.

Further, the learned counsel argued that the facts of the case fall squarely under Exception 8 of Section 499 of IPC, which excludes from the ambit of defamation any accusation made in good faith to an authority having lawful authority over the person against whom the accusation is made. It was stated that the complaint to government officials does not equate to public defamation.

In support of this contention, reliance was placed on two precedents:

1. M/s. Pataka Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

2. Shatrughna Prasad Sinha Vs. Rajbhau Surajmal Rathi and Others, (1996) 6 SCC 263.

It was contended that to establish defamation under Section 500 IPC, the complainant must show that the imputations harmed their reputation in the estimation of others. No such evidence had been provided by the complainant, and no other person was examined to substantiate the same.

The petitioners also submitted that the complaint lacked averments regarding any threats or criminal intimidation as contemplated under Section 506 IPC. Moreover, Petitioner No. 2 had not even signed the mass petition but was still made an accused.

Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta recorded that the core issue was whether the mass complaint against the complainant could amount to an offence under Sections 500, 506, or 120B of IPC. The Court cited the provisions of the said Sections, including relevant exceptions to Section 499 IPC.

"In the present case, it is an admitted fact that a mass petition was submitted alleging illegal activities perpetrated by the complainant/opposite party no. 1... The petition was submitted to the appropriate authorities in exercise of their legal and natural rights, and it was done confidentially," observed the Court.

The judgment further stated, "This mass petition is for the protection of institution or the students or their own rights and interest cannot be construed as malice and imputation of reputation in public or society as such, cannot be said to have been made with intent to defame the complainant."

Regarding the lack of necessary ingredients for constituting defamation, the Court noted:

"Neither the petition of complaint nor the statement recorded by the Learned Trial Court... has alleged that complainant’s reputation... was diminished in the eyes of any other person."

It was also noted that several individuals whose signatures appeared on the mass petition later claimed their signatures were forged or obtained without full knowledge. Nonetheless, these declarations did not negate the fact that the original complaint to government officials was made confidentially and in good faith.

Addressing the aspect of criminal intimidation, the Court observed:

"The ingredients required for an offence under Section 506 of the IPC are also not fulfilled or found either in the complaint... or in the statement recorded in solemn affirmation."

On the point of men’s rea, the Court cited Pataka Industries stating:

"Defamation is a species of which mens rea is the genesis... The complaint may not have any mens rea but defamation must have it."

The Court recognized the concept of privileged communication in cases involving matters of public interest. It stated:

"The Mass Complaint... is privileged in nature as it pertains to a matter of public interest outweighing the right to reputation... Absolute privilege is when the statements made... are protected because they relate to a matter of public concern... Qualified privilege is when anyone makes any statement in a good intention and without the intent to defame."

The Court concluded that the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to a "sheer abuse of the process of court."

The Court passed the following directives:

"CRR No. 364 of 2014 is hereby allowed. CRAN 2/2015 (Old CRAN 2542/2015) and all connected applications, if any, are also, thus, disposed of."

Also Read: Karnataka HC: MSME Council Cannot Pass Award After Failed Conciliation Without Referring Matter to Arbitration

"Proceeding being C.R. Case No. 542 of 2013 under Sections 500/506/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 pending before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court at Burdwan is hereby quashed insofar as to the petitioners are concerned."

"Let a copy of this Judgment be sent to the Learned Trial Court for information."

"Interim order, if any, stands vacated."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr. Rajdeep Mazumder, Senior Advocate, Mr. Pinaki Ranjan Chakraborty, Advocate, Ms. Triparna Roy, Advocate, Mr. Soumya Raha, Advocate

Case Title: Sripati Sarkar & Ors. Vs Sri Debangshu Das & Another
Case Number: C.R.R. 364 of 2014 with CRAN 2/2015 (Old CRAN 2542 of 2015)
Bench: Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta

[Read/Download order]