Brief Facts
- The Appellant herein lodged a complaint in writing, addressed to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (for short, “the SDM”) stating that the Respondent No.2 herein (original complainant) had put up a shop by encroaching upon some land and further alleged that the Respondent is creating nuisance, inter alia.
- During the pendency of such compliant the Complainant lodged a private complaint for the offence of defamation. The learned Magistrate took cognizance on the said complaint and issued process. The cognizance for the offence of defamation was taken by the Magistrate on the basis of the averments said to have been made by the appellant in his written complaint addressed to the SDM, referred to above.
- Thereafter the appellant thought fit to challenge the original order of issue of process before the High Court. The High Court without entering into the merits of the matter, declined to entertain such petition only on the ground of delay.
- In such circumstances referred to above, the Appellant approached the Supreme Court with the present appeal.
Issues
- Whether the allegations made in the complaint addressed to the SDM make out the offence under Section 500 of IPC or not?
Held
- The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the complaint as the allegations made in the compliant were covered under Exception No. 8 of Section 499 IPC.
- We are of the view that no case is made out to put the appellant to trial for the alleged offence. There is no defamation as such.
- Exception 8 to Section 499 clearly indicates that it is not a defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with regard to the subject-matter of accusation. Even otherwise by perusing the allegations made in the complaint, we are satisfied that no case for defamation has been made out.
Relevant Page No.
- 4 – 6