M.A. RUMUGAM v. KITTU @ KIRSHNAMOORTHY

Citation: [2008] 15 S.C.R. 642

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: S.B. SINHA, CYRIAC JOSEPH

Case summary

M.A. RUMUGAM v. KITTU @ KIRSHNAMOORTHY.pdf

Judgment text

[2008] 15 S. C. R. 642 M. A. RUMUGAM . v. KITTU @ KIRSHNAMOORTHY (Criminal Appeal No. 1749 of 2008) NOVEMBER 7, 2008 [S. B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ. ] ;.. . :_ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s-. 482 - Complaint alleging defamation - Quashing of sought - Held: Allegation made in the complaint petition make out a case for proceeding against the accused uls. 500 /PC - Accused is required to prove that the act was done in good faith in order to come within purview of Eighth and Ninth Exception to s. 499 /PC - In the facts of the case, it was premature for High Court to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the act was in good faith - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 499 and 500. Appellant was the owner of a piece of land whereon. he had planted 180 coconut trees. One day, he found 9 of the trees dead. Upon enquiry, he came to know that two persons had damaged them allegedly on the advice of the respondent. Appellant filed a police complaint.

Respondent was ultimately discharged by the Magistrate as the authorities could not complete the investigation ~ within a period of six months. He also filed a suit seeking ~· injunction against the defendants restraining them from causing damage to the footpath in his property. In the suit, Advocate Commissioner was appointed, who in his report stated that 9 coconut trees were found dead. The respondent thereafter lodged a private complaint ) against the appellant alleging commission of offence of defamation u/s. 500 IPC. He alleged that the publication >· ' of the allegation against him in various newspapers, false propaganda among the village people and implication of I his name in the police complaint has defamed him. Magistrate summoned the appellant. Appellant filed petition before High Court seeking quashing of the complaint filed by the respondent. The petition was dismissed by High Court. Hence the present appeal. 8 Dismissing the appeal, the Court · HELD: 1. 1.

Allegations made in the complaint petition, make out a case for proceeding against the -' appellant u/s. 500 l. P.. C. as thereby imputation concerning the respondent had been made intending to harm or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation would harm his reputation. [Para 14] [650-D] 1. 2. For the purpose of bringing his case within the purview of the Eighth and the Ninth Exception appended to Section 499 IPC, it would be necessary for the appellant to prove good faith for the protection of the interests of the person making it or of any other person or for the public good. Those who plead exception must prove it. The burden of proof that his action was bonafide would, thus, be on the appellant alone. [Paras 15 and 16] [650-E, F, G] 1. 3. At the stage of the present case, it would have been premature for the High Court to consider the )" .

, materials placed by the appellant before it so as to arrive at a definite conclusion that there was no element of bad faith on the part of the appellant in making the said complaint before the police authorities. [Para 17) [650-G, HJ 1. 4. Respondent was furthermore discharged by the Magistrate in the Police case at the instance of the appellant, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 167(5) Cr. P. C. stating that the police authorities could not complete the investigation within a period of six months. [Para 18] [G51-A] '\ '1. 5. There'is no infirmity in the impugned judgment.. Furthermore, the question, as to whether a totally false complaint has b~en made as against the respondent or not as· he was not even in India prior to the date of occurrence, is required to be gone into by the Trial Judge. B" [Para 20] [651-E, F] Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande Etc.. v. Uttam and Anr. , - . . . ... , .. ~· 1999 (1) SCH . 58Q, distingui~hed. Case'{aw Reference 1999 (1) SCR 580 .

Distinguished. Para 19 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1749 of 2008. o From the Judgment and' Order dated 8. 9. 2006 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Crl. O. P. No. 10819 of 2006. G. Sivabalamurugan, Y. Arunagiri and L. K. Pandey for the Appellant. P. Somasundaram, S. J. Aristotle and M. A. Krishna Mcarthy for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S. S. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted. ·' appellant in making the said complaint before the police authorities. 18. Respondent was furthermore discharged by the learned Magistrate in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 167(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure stating that the police authorities could not complete the investigation within a period of six months. 19. Strong reliance has been placed by Mr. _Sivabalamurugan on a decision of this Court in Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande Etc. v. Uttam and Another [1999 (1) SCR 580).

Accusation against the accused therein related to the conduct on his part before the Treasury Officer. The learned - Magistrate, when the complaint was filed, instead of issuing process called upon the Treasury Officer to hold an inquiry and submit a report in the court. Pursuant thereto and I or in furtherance thereof, a report was submitted. In the said report, the Treasury Officer clearly indicated that pursuant to the report made by the accused persons against the complainant, a departmental enquiry had been made and the complainant was found guilty. It was in the aforementioned situation, the Magistrate's order refusing to issue summons was upheld by this Court. 20. For the reasons aforementioned, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment. Furthermore, the question, as to whether a totally false complaint has been made as against the respondent or not as he was not even in India prior to the date of occurrence, is required to be gone into by the learned Trial Judge.

21. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. K. K. T. Ap"eal dismissed.