MP High Court Refuses To Quash Defamation Case Against Shahdol Bar Association President Over Allegedly False Complaint

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed the application of an Advocate and President of the District Bar Association of Shahdol, challenging the order affirming the order taking cognisance of defamation charges, noting that the allegations prima facie satisfy the ingredients of the offence.

The bench of Justice Himanshu Joshi observed,

"It is trite that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised sparingly and only when complaint does not disclose any offence on the face of record. In the present case, the allegations prima facie satisfy the ingredients of defamation. Whether the applicant is entitled to benefit of statutory exceptions is a matter to be decided during trial upon leading of evidence".

The applicant, an advocate, filed a petition challenging the order passed by the Sessions Judge affirming the order of the ACJM, where cognizance for defamation (Section 500 IPC) against the applicant was taken.

The applicant was the President of the District Bar Association of Shahdol. Respondent no 1 was also an advocate, and Respondent no 2 was the District President of the Samajwadi Party.

In the Municipal Election, both the applicant and respondent No. 1 contested for the post of President; however, both lost the election. It was alleged that the applicant addressed a written complaint on September 18, 2012, to the Superintendent of Police, alleging that respondents 1 and 2 obtained the election symbol 'cycle' by forging and making false documents and caused publication of news in a local newspaper, thereby committing offences punishable for cheating (Section 420), forgery of valuable security, will etc (Section 467), forgery for purposes of cheating (Section 468) and using a forged document as genuine (Section 471) of IPC.

The applicant had filed a private complaint before the competent court, which was subsequently withdrawn.

Thereafter, the respondents no 1 and 2, filed a complaint alleging the commission of offences related to false information (Section 182), false charges of offence (Section 211) and defamation (Section 500) of the IPC. The ACJM, however, only took cognisance of the offence of defamation (Section 500 of IPC). The revision preferred by the applicant against the said order came to be dismissed.

The counsel for the applicant contended that both the trial court and the revisional court erred in law in not deciding the issue specifically raised by the applicant.

The counsel for the respondents contended that the applicant, after losing the election, made false and derogatory allegations. The respondents contended that no objections were raised during the scrutiny of the nomination.

The court noted that the applicant made written allegations against respondents alleging forgery and criminal conspiracy; a complaint was submitted to the police, and thereafter a private complaint was filed, and allegations were published in a local newspaper, and the complaint was subsequently withdrawn.

The bench further reiterated that the burden to establish the applicability of any exception lies upon the accused, and such a determination requires an appreciation of evidence. The contention that the allegations are protected under the first and third exceptions to Section 499 IPC.

Per the material placed before the magistrate, it prima facie discloses that imputations of forgery and criminal conspiracy were made against the respondents and were communicated to their persons, including publication in a newspaper.

The court noted that the allegations prima facie satisfy the ingredients of defamation and therefore no interference was warranted in the case. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

Case Title: Dinesh Dixit v Rakesh Singh Baghel [MCRC 7000 of 2019]

For Petitioner: Advocates Dinesh Dixit and Anant Dixit

For Respondent no 1: Advocate Yogesh Singh Baghel

Click here to read/download the Order