Criminal Process Cannot Be Used To Penalise Person For Approaching Competent Statutory Authority With Grievance: J&K&L High Court

The Court held that the criminal process cannot be permitted to become an instrument for penalising a person merely for approaching a competent statutory authority with a grievance.

The Court was hearing a petition filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of a criminal complaint instituted under Section 500 of the Ranbir Penal Code, along with an order passed by the Special Mobile Magistrate, Passenger Tax, Jammu, whereby process was issued against the petitioner.

The complaint alleged that the petitioner made defamatory imputations against the respondent in an application submitted before the State Information Commission and subsequently circulated copies of the same.

The petition was heard by Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, who observed,

“A complaint alleging defamation cannot be sustained merely because the allegations made before a competent statutory Section authority are adverse to the person against whom they are directed or are perceived by that person to have lowered his reputation.”

Background

The petitioner, a retired police officer, instituted a criminal complaint under Sections 499, 500, 501 and 502 of the Ranbir Penal Code against the respondent, a retired employee of the Information Department who subsequently started publishing a newspaper, for alleged defamatory publications.

On the same date, the petitioner also instituted a civil suit seeking damages against the respondent. Upon recording statements, the learned Magistrate took cognizance and issued process against the respondent, which order was subsequently upheld by the High Court.

Meanwhile, the respondent instituted a separate criminal complaint under the Ranbir Penal Code against the petitioner, alleging that the petitioner had made defamatory allegations and imputations against him in an application submitted before the State Information Commission in November 2017.

In the said application, the petitioner allegedly accused the respondent of blackmailing various government departments, misusing the Right to Information Act to exert pressure upon departmental heads, and withdrawing RTI applications after obtaining illegal gratification.

The respondent alleged that the petitioner distributed copies of the application by hand and through registered post among the respondent's close relatives and friends, intending to malign him, and that the recipients shared the contents on social networking sites. The Magistrate took cognizance and issued process against the petitioner.

The petitioner contended that the criminal complaint was misconceived, maliciously motivated, and constituted an abuse of the process of law. It was submitted that the complaint was filed as a counterblast to the criminal complaint and civil suit earlier instituted by the petitioner against the respondent.

The petitioner argued that the essential ingredients of an offence under Section 500 of the Ranbir Penal Code were not made out, as the imputations arose from an application submitted before a competent statutory authority for redressal of grievances.

It was contended that the petitioner had merely availed himself of remedies available under law by approaching the State Information Commission, and that the submission of an application before a statutory authority could not establish an intention to defame. Reliance was placed on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992).

Per contra, the respondent contended that in the course of his journalistic activities, he obtained information from government departments through RTI applications concerning alleged irregularities committed by the petitioner, and published news reports.

It was submitted that the petitioner thereafter submitted an application before the State Information Commission containing defamatory imputations, which were not confined to the statutory proceedings but were also circulated among the respondent's friends and close relatives, resulting in damage to his reputation. The respondent relied on the constitutional recognition of reputation as an aspect of the right to life under Article 21 and contended that the right to criticise is not absolute.

Court's Observation

The Court observed that the inherent jurisdiction of the Court under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure is intended to prevent abuse of the process of any Court and to secure the ends of justice.

The Court noted that where the allegations contained in a complaint, even if accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie disclose the commission of any offence, or where the criminal proceedings are manifestly mala fide and instituted with an ulterior motive, the Court is justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction to quash such proceedings.

The Court addressed the first aspect of the complaint, namely the submission of the application before the State Information Commission. The Court held,

“A plain reading of the aforesaid Exception makes it evident that an accusation preferred in good faith before a person or authority having lawful competence in respect of its subject matter is not to be treated as defamation.”

The Court observed that the protection is founded upon a legitimate principle that a person must be able to approach a competent authority and place a grievance before it without the act of doing so, by itself, exposing him to criminal prosecution. The Court relied on Kishore Balkrishna Nand v. State of Maharashtra (2023) and distinguished the judgment in Dr. J. Sudarshan v. R. Sankaran (1992).

The Court further noted that the reliance placed by the respondent on Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016) was misplaced, as the said judgment dealt primarily with the constitutional validity of the relevant sections and did not address the applicability of the Eighth Exception to an accusation made before a competent statutory authority.

Regarding the allegation that the petitioner circulated copies of the application among the respondent's relatives and friends, the Court held that the same was untenable, as no material had been placed on record to substantiate the said allegation. The Court observed that the allegation remained a bald assertion, unsupported by any cogent or tangible material, and appeared to have been introduced only to lend an additional foundation to the complaint.

The Court further observed that the overall facts and circumstances lent considerable force to the petitioner's contention that the complaint was a counterblast to the proceedings initiated by him against the respondent. The Court held,

“To allow the impugned proceedings to continue in the circumstances obtaining in the present case would not advance the legitimate object of criminal law; rather, it would expose the petitioner to the ordeal of prosecution despite the absence of a legally sustainable foundation for the same.”

Accordingly, the petition was allowed, and the criminal complaint along with the order issuing process were quashed.