Bombay High Court
Smt. Shalini Madan Puri vs Devanand Anand Pandagale And Othr on 5 January, 2021
Bench: V. G. Joshi
1 901 appa 1160.2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) NO. 1160 OF 2018
Smt. Shalini Madan Puri
..vs..
Devanand Anand Pandagale and ors.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri R.D. Dharmadhikari, Advocate for applicant/appellant.
Shri M.A. Sable, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 14.
CORAM : VINAY JOSHI, J.
DATED : 05/01/2021
Heard.
2. The applicant has prayed for condonation of
delay of 80 days caused in filing appeal.
3. Learned Counsel for the respondents/accused has
fairly given no objection to condone the delay.
4. In view of that, delay stands condoned. The
Criminal Application stands disposed of accordingly.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION/APPEAL ______ OF _______
Heard.
2. The appellant i.e. original complainant has
sought for special leave to appeal to challenge the order of
acquittal passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 787 of 2007
for the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian
Penal Code.
3. Initially, the appellant has filed private complaint
alleging that in all 14 accused by paper publication dated
2 901 appa 1160.2018
07.05.2007 and 12.05.2007 knowingly published a
defamatory material with an intent to harm the reputation
of the appellant. It is the case that the appellant was a
Secretary of a Public Trust which own certain property
including a Well. The appellant was managing the affairs
of the Trust. In order to protect and for the purpose of
safety, she had spread iron net over the Well. According to
the appellant near-about 30 to 40 villagers got annoyed by
such act of appellant and made false complaints to the
Chief Officer and Police Station against her. It was
complaint that the appellant had intentionally put gurbaje
in the Well and accordingly prevented the villagers from
getting Well water. Not only that, the respondents
(accused) have also filed complaint to Chief Officer, Nagar
Parishad and Police which were published in news papers
namely "Deshonnati" and " Dainik Punyanagari". It is the
case of appellant that by such publication her reputation
has been ruined, therefore, the complaint for defamation.
4. The record indicates that initially the then
learned Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint and
issued a process against the accused. The evidence before
charge was recorded. Learned Magistrate vide order dated
05.01.2011 had discharged some of the accused with a
finding that there was no material to proceed against
them. Rest of the accused have faced trial. The evidence
was led before the Magistrate. On appreciation of
evidence, learned Magistrate held that, the appellant failed
to establish the essential ingredients to constitute the
offence as define under Section 499 of the Indian Penal
Code and accordingly, passed the judgment of acquittal.
3 901 appa 1160.2018
5. Heard both sides and gone through the available
record. The entire complaint was based on two news items
published in the news papers as stated above. On minute
perusal of news items it reveals that, the news was about
grievance put forward by several persons against the
appellant for her act of withholding the villagers from
taking Well water. Apparently, there is no material to
indicate that the said news item was published at the
behest of existing respondents. Pertinent to note that,
though Editor or Publisher were made party, however
complaint was dismissed against them. The appellant has
not challenge the said order in the result the prosecution
proceeded without the Editor or Publisher who were
responsible for the news items.
6. As per the case set out by the complainant, the
accused have allegedly filed complaint to Chief Officer and
Police Station which appears to be percolated in the news
items. There is no material to hold that accused have
caused to publish said news item. The truthfulness of the
news items is not relevant since it is domain of the public
authority. Only on the basis of such complaint, the news
has been published putting forward the information about
such complaint filed by the accused. Therefore, by any
stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that the accused
have intentionally caused to publish news items with a
view to defame the complainant.
7. To challenge the order of acquittal passed in the
case instituted upon complaint special leave to appeal has
been sought. The very purpose of inserting Sub Clause (4)
to Section 387 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to nip
4 901 appa 1160.2018
the uncalled litigation in the bud. It is a sort of filter to
prima facie scan the material and weed-out the
unmeritorious litigation at the threshold. The above
discussion leads me to hold that there is no remote
possibility of conviction meaning thereby continuation of
proceeding would amount to abuse of the process of
Court. Therefore, it is not a fit case to grant special leave
and accordingly, application as well as appeal stands
dismissed.
JUDGE
Trupti
