Sec 482 CrPC Cannot Be Invoked To Examine Correctness Of Allegations In A Complaint: J&K&L High Court Reiterates

Reiterating that powers of the court under Section 482 Cr.P.C are to be exercised with great amount of caution the J&K&L High court on Monday held that under the said provision the Court cannot examine the correctness of the allegations in a compliant except in exceptionally rare cases where it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offence.

The observations were made by Justice M A Chowdhary while hearing a plea under Section 482 Cr.P.C in terms of which the petitioner was seeking quashment an order passed by the court of Special Mobile Magistrate PT & E Srinagar in a Criminal Complaint wherein the petitioners/accused persons were found involved in the commission of offence punishable under Section 500 IPC.

The petitioner challenged the order inter alia on the ground that the complaint suffers from exception provided under Section 499 IPC as the actions of the petitioners making publication was in a good faith, as such, the offence of defamation is not constituted.

Adjudicating upon the matter, the bench observed that it was difficult to return a finding whether or not the petitioner had satisfied the requirement of good faith and public good so as to fall within the ambit of Tenth Exception to Section 499 IPC. Similarly it will neither be possible nor appropriate to comment over the allegations leveled by the accused and record a final opinion whether these allegations do constitute defamation, the bench underscored.

Explaining the limitations of the court in intervening in such matters, the bench explained that it is possible that a false compliant may have been lodged at the behest of the business opponent, however, such possibility would not justify interference under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings.

"In exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC, the Court does not examine the correctness of the allegations in a compliant except in exceptionally rare cases where it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offence", the bench recorded.

Buttressing the said position of law, the bench placed reliance on a Judgement of Supreme court in Jeffrey J. Diermeier & Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal & Anr. reported as (2010) wherein SC held that the plea of good faith and public interest would be relevant and require to be considered for deciding the plea raised by the petitioners, however, unfortunately all these are the questions of fact and matters for evidence.

Deliberating on the other contention of the petitioner/accused that the complaint made by the complainant/respondent before the trial Magistrate against them together with the material in support thereof did not disclose commission of any offence by the petitioners/accused, the bench explained that for constituting an offence of defamation, it must be shown that the accused had intention or had reason to believe that such imputation would harm reputation of the complainant.

"So, mens rea is a condition precedent to constitute the offence. There has to be an intention or knowledge on the part of the accused to cause harm to the reputation of the complainant. Without intention or knowledge, the offence would not be constituted," the bench added.

Applying the said position of law to the case at hand, the bench observed that the trial Court had drawn sufficient satisfaction that the complainant disclosed the facts i.e., the accused persons made and published imputation concerning the complainant with intention and having knowledge, to harm its repute.

Pointing out to the fact that the Magistrate has only summoned the petitioner after taking cognizance of the complaint, the court said all the accused shall have a right of being heard before the Magistrate, wherein the allegations can be rebutted threadbare by the petitioner/accused.

For the foregoing reasons the court declined to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly dismissed the petition.

Case Title : M/S Rashmi Metaliks Ltd. & Anr Vs M/S Jindal Saw Ltd. & Ors.

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 267

Coram : Justice MA Chowdhary.

Counsel For Petitioner : Mr Shuja Ul Haq.

Counsel For Respondent : Mr. Himanshu Dubey, Mr. S.A.Makroo, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Shahbaz Sikandar Mir, Advocate.

Click Here To Read/Download Order