The Gujarat High Court has observed that merely filing an application before the police against a person containing certain allegations over commission of an alleged criminal act wherein the police has lawful authority over the subject matter of accusation, would not amount to the offence of defamation. 

As per Section 356 BNS/ 500 IPC 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.

The petitioner alleged that the respondent no. 2 had filed an application with the police in respect of certain land in District Narmada, which is stated to be a forest land.

The petitioner claimed that thereafter a Facebook user had posted, that such an application was filed before the police alleging that the standing crops on the land had been grazed by the cattle at the instance of the petitioner herein and his cronies. Petitioner alleged that the user had uploaded the application filed by respondent No.2 with certain photographs.

Petitioner claimed that the user had posted this information on his Facebook page at the instance of respondent No.2 and is defaming the petitioner for no reason.

He claimed he was not connected to any criminal act over the land in question. He said that he had adduced before the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Dediyapada the newspaper cuttings of Gujarat Samachar (Vadodara Edition) and Sandesh (Bharuch-Narmada Edition), alleging at the instance of respondent No.2, such malicious defamatory news items have been published against the petitioner.

He had sought before the magistrate court that Section 500 IPC be registered against respondent No.2, however his plea was dismissed. The magistrate court had observed that the application which was allegedly filed by respondent 2 before the police, had not been adduced by the petitioner and that such allegations being false or true, is a matter of investigation.

The petitioner moved the revisional court which upheld the magistrate court's order, pursuant to which he moved the high court. 

Justice JL Odedra observed that the alleged application purportedly filed by respondent no. 2 with the police, had not been adduced on record by the petitioner and that the document was not placed on record even in the revisional proceedings.

"Therefore, the very edifice, on which the petitioner claims that respondent No.2 has defamed, is missing," the court said. 

The court further observed that Facebook user had not been impleaded by the petitioner in proceedings before the magistrate court. It further observed that from the newspaper items it transpires that the name of the person behind grazing of the subject lands is not mentioned.

"In short, there is no merit in the said application and as a result, two Courts have given a finding that the petitioner does not make out a case for investigating the allegations alleged by the petitioner before the Magisterial Court or any revisional proceedings.

Lastly, assuming that there was an application, then too, merely because the person files an application to any of those, who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject matter of accusation, the same does not amount to defamation in terms of Exception Resultantly, no direction can be given to revive Enquiry No.02 of 2022 to the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dediyapada" the court added. 

The court dismissed the petition.