Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court: While hearing the instant petition seeking to quash an FIR filed by the respondent under Section 499, 500, 501, 502 of the Ranbir Penal Code (‘RPC’) and order dated 27-03-2017 passed by the Trial Court for initiation of process against the petitioner who had allegedly published a defamatory news report against the respondent; a single Judge bench of Vinod Chatterji Koul, J.*, dismissed the petition and held that the Court is not inclined to quash the impugned FIR and order of the Trial Court due to the complicity of the petitioner with the charges framed against him. The Court observed that the press must refrain from publishing contents in the newspaper that are manifestly defamatory in nature against an individual. The content published should be duly verified and there should be sufficient reason to believe that it is true and serves the public good. Truth is no defence for publishing defamatory material against a private citizen where no public interest is involved.
The Court further concluded that the mode and way the headlines were drafted in the newspaper articles clearly reflected the intention of the petitioner which was to defame the respondent. “The material collected by the petitioner was not published with purely the information received but on the contrary the petitioner’s own interpretation and opinion was also mixed and published in the newspaper. This in conclusion cannot be protected as free speech protected under Article 19 of the Constitution”.
Background:
Respondent filed a complaint under Sections 499, 500, 501, 502 of RPC against the petitioner wherein it was stated that the petitioner had intentionally and maliciously carried out false and defamatory news against the respondent who was a highly decorated, brave and honest officer. The respondent alleged that defamatory comments made by the petitioner in the newspaper named ‘Nawa-e-Waqt’ damaged the reputation enjoyed by him in his close circle.
The Trial Court after recording the statements of both the parties and taking into consideration the allegations and the attached documents, took cognizance and issued process against the petitioner.
The petitioner contended that the Trial Court wrongly took the cognizance though there was no material placed before it to make out a case punishable under the afore-stated Sections. The important ingredients were missing and the respondent filed the complaint with an oblique motive and to harass him.
It was further contended that news item published in the newspaper were based on information supplied to the petitioner under the provisions of J&K Right to Information Act which the petitioner bonafide believed to be true, and published it; hence no offence has been committed by the petitioner as same fell within the exception as provided under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
Per contra, the respondent contended that news items published by the petitioner would show that the petitioner had a intention to cause damage to the reputation of the respondent. Such acts do not fall under the exception provided under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
It was further contended that the petitioner had no right to tarnish the image of the respondent and that he has a fundamental right to reputation. Also, the published information was not based upon any fact and J&K Right to Information Act cannot be used to tarnish the image of the respondent under the grab of freedom of speech and expression.
Court’s Assessment:
Court opined that the press must refrain from publishing defamatory contents against an individual in the newspaper. Furthermore, the press has the right to expose cases of corruption and irregularities in public bodies as a custodian of public interest, but such reporting should be based on irrefutable evidence, published after due inquiry and verification from the concerned sources and should include the version of the person or authority being commented upon. The Court relied on Supreme Court’s decision in Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 221, wherein it was held that the Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution is not absolute and cannot be used as a defence in defaming another person.
Perusing the article in question, the Court firmly concluded that the published contents were overriding and in contravention to the contents allegedly received by the petitioner. The Court further noted that when read in totality, the article in question clearly defames the respondent by terming him as a ‘corrupt person who misused his power of position’; hence the same cannot be protected as a free speech under Article 19 of the Constitution.
Vis-à-vis Right to Reputation, the Court observed that personal rights of a human being include the right of reputation. A good reputation is an element of personal security and is protected by the Constitution equally with the right to the enjoyment of life, liberty and property, which is why it has been held to be an essential component vis-à-vis right to life of a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court further opined that scope of Section 482 of CrPC has been well defined, i.e., the power can be exercised by the High Court to give effect to an order under the CrPC to prevent abuse of the process of Court. The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani, (2017) 2 SCC 779, wherein it was held that power to quash FIR under Section 482 of CrPC and Article 226 of the Constitution should be exercised in a very sparing manner. Such powers should be exercised in rarest of rare cases.
Thus, based on the afore-stated analysis and discussion on inherent jurisdiction of the Court vis-à-vis quashment, the Court stated that it can neither decide whether or not the offence had been made out, nor it can decide the involvement of the petitioner under the charges framed against him. All these things have to be decided by the Trial Court and not by the High Court. Thus, the Court dismissed the petition to quash the impugned FIR and Order passed by the Trial Court.
[Pritam Chand v. Kamal Saini, 2023 SCC OnLine J&K 1282, decided on 30-12-2023]
*Order by Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner: Ajay Sharma, Advocate
For Respondent: Anil Sethi, Advocate
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
