Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Sudha Shrivastava vs Devesh Gupta on 7 February, 2022
Author: Satish Kumar Sharma
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Criminal Revision No.559/2016 (Smt. Sudha Shrivastava Vs. Devesh Gupta and
another )
Gwalior, Dated:-7.2.2022
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Amit Lahoti, learned counsel for the respondent no.1.
1. This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated
8.10.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior in
Case No.9557/2015, whereby the case under section 500 of IPC has
been registered against the petitioner on the complaint of the
respondent.
2. On the issue of maintainability of this petition which has
been directly filed before this court instead of Court of Sessions,
learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that under section
397 of Cr.P.C. the revision can be filed either before the Sessions
Court or before the High Court and there is no legal bar to file the
same straightway in the High Court. He further submits that after
hearing on this issue, this Court has been pleased to issue notice in
the matter, therefore, this petition may be heard on merits.
3. While opposing the above contention, learned counsel for the
respondent is ready to argue the matter on merits.
4. Though, this Court is of the view that when the Sessions
Court as well as the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Criminal Revision No.559/2016 (Smt. Sudha Shrivastava Vs. Devesh Gupta and
another )
revision petition under section 397 of Cr.P.C. the judicial discipline
demands that such revision should be filed before the Court of
Sessions and not straightway before this Court. However, since the
present revision is pending in this Court from the year 2016,
wherein notices have already been issued, relegating the parties to
the Court of Sessions at this belated stage would not be in the
interest of either party, therefore, as agreed by learned counsel
appearing for the parties, the matter has been heard on merits.
5. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent no.1-
complainant filed a complaint against the present petitioner and
proforma respondent no.2 with the allegation that in reply to his RTI
application they issued a letter to the complainant with the
imputation that he is a man of unsound mentality (fod`r ekufldrk okyk
O;fDr). This imputation has been noted with clear intention to harm
his reputation. This letter passed through several hands and
delivered in open envelope by an office peon. Accordingly they
have committed the offence of defamation punishable under section
500 of IPC. After examining the complainant and his witnesses, the
learned Trial Court vide impugned order registered the Case
No.9557/2015 under section 500 of IPC, being aggrieved of which
this revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-Smt. Sudha
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Criminal Revision No.559/2016 (Smt. Sudha Shrivastava Vs. Devesh Gupta and
another )
Shrivastava and co-accused Rajesh Pushpad has been impleaded as
proforma respondent no.2.
6. The order dated 5.12.2019 shows that the co-accused Rajesh
Pushpad has expired and proceedings have been dropped against
him.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the relevant
time petitioner was working as Principal of Haridarshan H.S.
School Jhansi Road, Gwalior. The reply to the R.T.I application of
the complainant was prepared by the co-accused Rajesh Pushpad,
who happened to be Public Information Officer. She has only
counter signed the reply. She has never recorded any imputation to
defame the complainant. A criminal case is pending against the
complainant, wherein the petitioner is a witness and only to
pressurize her she has been falsely implicated. This is a glaring
example of abuse of process of the Court. The learned Trial Court
has not considered the matter in proper perspective. The impugned
order deserves to be quashed and set aside.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent-complainant submits that
a clear imputation has been recorded in letter dated 12.10.2010 to the
effect that the complainant is an unsound person (fod`r ekufldrk okyk
O;fDr). This letter has been signed by the present petitioner. She
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Criminal Revision No.559/2016 (Smt. Sudha Shrivastava Vs. Devesh Gupta and
another )
cannot escape from her criminal liability. The letter was passed
through several hands and ultimately delivered by the office peon.
The imputation in question has been recorded only to cause harm to
the reputation of the complainant. The learned Trial Court has not
committed any illegality in passing the impugned order. The
petition being baseless deserves to be dismissed.
9. Heard. Considered.
10. For disposal of this petition, the provisions of section 499 of
IPC are quoted below for ready reference :
"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
expected, to defame that person.
Explanation 1.--It may amount to defamation to
impute anything to a deceased person, if the
imputation would harm the reputation of that
person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to
the feelings of his family or other near relatives.
Explanation 2.--It may amount to defamation to
make an imputation concerning a company or an
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Criminal Revision No.559/2016 (Smt. Sudha Shrivastava Vs. Devesh Gupta and
another )
association or collection of persons as such.
Explanation 3.--An imputation in the form of an
alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to
defamation.
Explanation 4.--No imputation is said to harm a
person's reputation, unless that imputation
directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others,
lowers the moral or intellectual character of that
person, or lowers the character of that person in
respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the
credit of that person, or causes it to be believed
that the body of that person is in a loathsome
state, or in a state generally considered as
disgraceful.
First Exception - Imputation of truth which public
good requires to be made or published.--It is not
defamation to impute anything which is true
concerning any person, if it be for the public good
that the imputation should be made or published.
Whether or not it is for the public good is a
question of fact.
Second Exception. - Public conduct of public
servants.--It is not defamation to express in a
good faith any opinion whatever respecting the
conduct of a public servant in the discharge of his
public functions, or respecting his character, so
far as his character appears in that conduct, and
no further.
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Criminal Revision No.559/2016 (Smt. Sudha Shrivastava Vs. Devesh Gupta and
another )
Third Exception. -Conduct of any person touching
any public question.--It is not defamation to
express in good faith any opinion whatever
respecting the conduct of any person touching any
public question, and respecting his character, so
far as his character appears in that conduct, and
no further.
Fourth Exception. - Publication of reports of
proceedings of Courts.--It is not defamation to
publish substantially true report of the
proceedings of a Court of Justice, or of the result
of any such proceedings
Fifth Exception. - Merits of case decided in Court
or conduct of witnesses and others concerned.--It
is not defamation to express in good faith any
opinion whatever respecting the merits of any
case, civil or criminal, which has been decided by
a Court of Justice, or respecting the conduct of
any person as a party, witness or agent, in any
such case, or respecting the character of such
person, as far as his character appears in that
conduct, and no further.
Sixth Exception. - Merits of public performance.
--It is not defamation to express in good faith any
opinion respecting the merits of any performance
which its author has submitted to the judgment of
the public, or respecting the character of the
author so far as his character appears in such
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Criminal Revision No.559/2016 (Smt. Sudha Shrivastava Vs. Devesh Gupta and
another )
performance, and no further.
Seventh Exception.-Censure passed in good faith
by person having lawful authority over another.--
It is not defamation in a person having over
another any authority, either conferred by law or
arising out of a lawful contract made with that
other, to pass in good faith any censure on the
conduct of that other in matters to which such
lawful authority relates.
Eight Exception. - Accusation preferred in good
faith to authorised person.--It is not defamation
to prefer in 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."
11. On perusal of the provisions contained in section 499 of IPC,
it is clear that the public officers have been protected from
prosecution for the action taken by them in good faith while
discharging their public duties.
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Criminal Revision No.559/2016 (Smt. Sudha Shrivastava Vs. Devesh Gupta and
another )
12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of
record this Court finds that the alleged defamatory letter was issued
in response to the RTI application of the complainant, wherein he
levelled an allegation that the petitioner refused to take his
application. The alleged defamatory letter has been issued in the
course of discharging the public duty, wherein the alleged imputation
has been noted with this assertion that the complainant has levelled
false allegation in his RTI application. The alleged imputation is not
in exclusion, but the same is coupled with the fact that the
complainant has levelled false allegation in his RTI application.
Thus, the action of the petitioner comes in the purview of Second
Exception and Seventh Exception to the definition of defamation
contained in section 499 of IPC.
13. The complainant in his support has examined his real brother
and the office peon Ramswaroop Sen. The office peon was required
to deliver the letter to the complainant and he was not supposed to
read the contents of the letter. By reading the contents of the letter
he has crossed his limits and violated the official ethics. Be that as
it may, since the communication in question is protected under the
above-mentioned exceptions to the definition of defamation the
registration of the criminal case against the petitioner cannot be said
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Criminal Revision No.559/2016 (Smt. Sudha Shrivastava Vs. Devesh Gupta and
another )
to be justified.
14. In view of above, the learned Trial Court has passed the
impugned order without taking into consideration the provisions of
above exceptions contained in section 499 of IPC. Thus, the
impugned order suffers with patent illegality and is therefore, not
sustainable in the eyes of law.
15. As a result, the revision is allowed. The impugned order is
quashed and set aside. The petitioner is acquitted of the offence
under section 500 of IPC.
E-copy/Certified copy as per rules/directions.
(Satish Kumar Sharma)
Judge
Pawar/-
ASHISH PAWAR
2022.02.09
16:05:59
+05'30'
