Bombay High Court

Sow.Chandrajyoti Arun Muley And Oth. vs Parshuram Kondiba Kamble on 19 August, 2025

2025:BHC-AUG:22956


                                                  1              22-appln 1484-2009.odt



                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                            CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1484 OF 2009

                 Sow. Chandrajyoti Arun Muley And Others                    .. Applicants

                       Versus

                 Parshuram Kondiba Kamble and another                       .. Respondents

                 Mr. C. V. Dharurkar, Advocate for the Applicants.
                 Mr. H. B. Nandagavale, Advocate h/f Mr. V. D. Sakolkar, Advocate
                 for Respondent No. 1.
                 Smt. Chaitali Chaudhari-Kutti, APP for Respondent No. 2.

                                           CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J.

                                           DATE       : 19th AUGUST, 2025.

                 PER COURT :-

                 .     Heard the parties.

2. This application is filed seeking quashment of the

proceeding filed by respondent No. 1 in S.C.C. No. 1381/2009

pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Aurangabad. The facts

in short are as below :

3. Respondent No. 1 was working as head of the Music

Department in the Government College, Aurangabad. One Dr.

Deshmukh, a professor in the said department, made a complaint

1 of 10 2 22-appln 1484-2009.odt

on 01.09.2008 to the Principal stating that the informant is

mentally harassing her. He asks her to come to his bungalow for

music classes. She refused to go to his bungalow as he resides

alone. Thereafter, he expressed feelings towards her. On that she

politely gave him understanding that he is head of the

department. Thereafter, he started making various complaints

against her and also started loose talking about her with the

students. He abuses in the office etc. She also quoted some other

incidences. The respondent No. 1 threatened her of filing

complaint under the Atrocities Act. It is stated that, the informant

threatened that unless she comes to his bungalow, he would not

end her probation. It is stated that, she is the only lady professor

in the department and therefore, she is not comfortable while

working. Along with her complaint, the present applicants also

gave representation to the Principal of Government College,

Aurangabad on the same date condemning the act of the

respondent No. 1. On this, the respondent No. 1 sent legal notice

to the applicants stating that they have committed an act of

defamation and he would proceed against them by filing a

complaint for the offences under Sections 109, 120-B, 500, 506

2 of 10 3 22-appln 1484-2009.odt

r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "I.P.C.").

Thereafter, he filed a complaint in the Court of learned J.M.F.C.,

Aurangabad. The process is also issued. The applicants,

therefore, approached this Court for quashing of the proceedings.

4. The learned advocate Mr. Dharurkar for the applicants

vehemently argued that, the only allegation against the

present applicants is that they have written

communication/representation to the Principal in support of their

lady colleague. The nature of the letter is only to support their

colleague. There is nothing defamatory against the complainant.

There is no publication of the said representation. Making

representation to the proper authority or the higher authority can

never be said to be an act of defamation. He submits that, the

case is clearly covered by exception 8 of Section 499 of the I.P.C.

The proceeding of the complaint, therefore, is clearly an abuse of

process of law. He further submits that, the employee in whose

support the letter was written has faced a trial against her by the

complainant. She is now cleanly acquitted by judgment dated

16.12.2019 by the learned J.M.F.C. in S.C.C. No. 1437/2009. The

Court has clearly held on merits in favour of the accused in that

3 of 10 4 22-appln 1484-2009.odt

case. It is clearly held that, the case is covered by exception 8 of

Section 499 of the I.P.C. The said judgment is not challenged by

the complainant. The learned advocate relies upon the following

judgments :

(i) Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande and others Vs. Uttam and another reported in AIR 1999 SC 1028.

(ii) Brahma Chellaney Vs. Marpol Private Limited & Anr. reported in 2005 (2) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 269.

(iii) Sopan Vithal Shinde Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2008 (4) AIR Bom R 350.

(iv) Kishore Balkrishna Nand Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr., in Criminal Appeal No. 2291/2011.

(v) Iveco Magirus Brandschutztechnik GMBH Vs. Nirmal Kishore Bhartiya and Anr. reported in (2024) 2 SCC 86.

5. The learned advocate for the applicants thus submits that,

clearly a case is made out to quash the proceedings.

6. The learned A.P.P. prays for passing appropriate order.

7. The learned advocate Mr. Nandagavale holding for learned

advocate Mr. Sakolkar for respondent No. 1 vehemently opposes

4 of 10 5 22-appln 1484-2009.odt

the application. He argued that, even making complaint to the

superiors without verifying the facts also amounts to defamation.

In the present case, alleged victim has already filed a complaint.

There was no reason for these applicants to make any

representation to the Principal. Even filing of such representation

without verifying the facts certainly amounts to defamation. In

the complaint there are averments that the complaint of alleged

victim was made public. The copy of complaint was circulated

amongst the students and other staff members. He thus prays for

rejection of the application.

8. In the case of Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande (supra), the

Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down guidelines for issuance of

process and maintainability of revision against the order of

issuance of process. It was a case arising out of the offence

punishable under Section 499 of the I.PC. The allegations against

the accused were that he had made a complaint to the superiors

about the complainant who was found in a drunken state during

the course of duty. The complainant, therefore, filed a complaint

under Section 499 of the I.P.C. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that,

making a complaint against a person in the office would not

5 of 10 6 22-appln 1484-2009.odt

amount to defamation and held that, the case is covered under

exception 8 of Section 499 of the I.P.C. The Hon'ble Apex Court in

view of the said was pleased to quash the order of issuance of

process.

9. In the case of Brahma Chellaney (supra), this Court quashed

the order of issuance of process. It was a case that the accused

was working as professor. He had written a letter to the Chairman

of Governing Board of the institution making allegations against

the complainant. The complainant filed a case under defamation.

This Court held that, no case of defamation was made out and it

was covered by illustration. In the case of State of Haryana Vs.

Bajan Lal, reported in AIR 1982 SCC 604, it was held that filing of

case of defamation was an abuse of process of law.

10. In the case of Sopan Vithal Shinde (supra), this Court

quashed the complaint filed by the wife. In that case, the wife

was working as a staff nurse. The husband wrote vulgar letters to

Chief Matron of hospital making allegations of extra marital

relations of his wife with others. It was held that, in such

circumstances the husband is not liable to be convicted under

6 of 10 7 22-appln 1484-2009.odt

Section 292. It was held that, there must be publication of false

imputation. Writing letter to the superior of the person which is

neither published nor circulated to others by the husband would

not amount to defamation.

11. In the case of Kishore Balkrishna Nand (supra), the Hon'ble

Apex Court considered that the case therein fallen under

exception 8 and 9 of Section 499 of the I.P.C. It was found that

the communication made in good faith would not amount to

defamation.

12. The case of Eveco Magirus (supra), was also a case of

defamation. In the said case also the Hon'ble Apex Court found

that, no case of defamation was made out.

13. In the present case, this Court finds that, taking the

letter/representation as it is, it only shows that it was a

communication by all the colleagues of the alleged victim to the

superior authority. Sending such representation can in no way be

said to be defamatory. There is nothing on record to show that

this representation was made public by any of the applicants.

7 of 10 8 22-appln 1484-2009.odt

Looking at the complaint, the main allegation is that the colleague

who was allegedly victimised has circulated her letter amongst the

students and thereby defamation is caused. It created suspicion in

the minds of the people about the character of the complainant.

Further allegation in the complaint shows that the alleged victim

lodged a complaint with the Principal of the College and to

Vishakha committee. The said complaint was dismissed holding

that there was no sexual harassment. There are no allegations

showing that it is these applicants who have circulated the

representation or they have spoken about the said to any of the

persons unconnected with the college.

14. Looking to Section 499 of the I.P.C., relevant portion of

Section 499 reads as below :

"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 excepted, to defame that person.

....................

....................

Eighth Exception.--Accusation preferred in good faith to authorised person.--It is not defamation to prefer in

8 of 10 9 22-appln 1484-2009.odt

good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject-matter of accusation.

Ninth Exception.--Imputation made in good faith by person for protection of his or other's interests.--It is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another provided that the imputation be made in good faith for the protection of the interests of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good."

15. Exception 8 provides that, representation in good faith to

authorized person does not come under the definition of

defamation. Thus, considering the section it is clear that, making

any representation in good faith for protection of his or others

interest cannot be said to be a defamation. In the present case, it

is the representation made to the Principal i.e. a person

authorized to receive complaints. There is no intention seen on

the part of any of the applicants to defame the respondent No. 1.

What is stated is only that proper action be taken against the

complainant. The representation is more in the nature of giving

support to alleged victim lady. It is only a protest letter. The

proposed letter is worded very mildly and is properly worded.