AROON PURIE versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 18 S.C.R. 311 · Decided: 31-10-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
311
AROON PURIE
v.
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1853-1856 of 2022)
OCTOBER 31, 2022
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI AND BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.]
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973: s.482 – Quashing of
complaint – In the instant case, a news item titled ‘Mission
Misconduct’ was published in the news magazine INDIA TODAY
stating that in a string of embarrassments for the foreign office,
three Indian Officials posted in the Indian High Commission at UK
had to be recalled in quick succession following serious allegations
of sexual misconduct, corruption in issuance of visas and sale of
Indian passports to illegal immigrants – Allegations were levelled
against an officer of the Indian Foreign Service posted in UK for
soliciting sexual favours from a local employee – The article further
stated that said officer, now back in India, was facing disciplinary
action and when contacted said official denied the charges – After
the publication of the Article, memorandum dated 21.05.2007 was
issued by the Ministry of External Affairs on the basis of the
complaint of accused No.12 by which explanation was sought as to
why disciplinary action should not be initiated against said officer
“for sexual harassment of a woman at work place” – The said officer
filed response and thereafter disciplinary authority ordered penalty
– Order imposing penalty upheld by the Central Administrative
Tribunal and also by High Court – In the meantime, complaint filed
by said officer against various persons A-1 (Editor-in-Chief), A-2
(Author of the Article), and public servants A-3, A-4 and A-8 and
other accused under various sections including ss.34, 120 B, 405,
468, 470, 471, 499, 501 and 502 of the IPC – Magistrate found
sufficient material to proceed against accused 1, 2, 3, 4, 8 and 12
for the commission of offences punishable under ss.500, 502 read
with s.120 B of the IPC – Petition filed under s.482 was dismissed
by High Court – On appeal, held: There was nothing specific
attributed to A-1 therefore, he cannot be held liable for the acts
committed by the author of the article, namely, A-2 – With regard to
the role ascribed to A-2 whether what he did was an act which was
[2022] 18 S.C.R. 311
311
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
312
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
justified or not would be a question of fact to be gone into only at
the stage of trial – Insofar as the public servants were concerned,
they were not primarily responsible for the article and their
responsibility, if at all, is only to the extent that they either reported
something touching upon the complaint made by A-12 or in their
capacity as public servants, reported something to their seniors,
their actions are completely protected – Appeals insofar as A-1 and
the public servants A-3, A-4 and A-8 are concerned is allowed and
the summoning order is set aside and complaint lodged against them
is quashed – The appeal preferred by A-2 is rejected.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Though the presumption under Section 7 of Press
and Registration of Books Act, 1867 is available with regard to
the Editor, even a Chief Editor can be proceeded against if the
facts so justify. In a given case, if the facts so justify, the benefit
of an exception to Section 499 of the IPC can be extended and it
is not taken to be a rigid principle that the benefit of exception
can only be afforded at the stage of trial. Considering the assertions
and allegations made in the complaint, there nothing specific has
been attributed to A-1, Editor-in-Chief. He cannot, therefore, be
held liable for the acts committed by the author of the Article,
namely, A-2. The allegations made in the complaint completely
fall short of making out any case against A-1. [Paras 21, 22,
23][324-D-H]
2. With regard to the role ascribed to A-2, it must be stated
at this stage that as an author of the Article his case stands on a
different footing. Whether what he did was an act which was
justified or not would be a question of fact to be gone into only at
the stage of trial. [Para 24][325-A]
3. Insofar as the public servants are concerned, they are
not primarily responsible for the Article and their responsibility,
if at all, is only to the extent that they either reported something
touching upon the complaint made by A-12 or in their capacity as
public servants, reported something to their seniors. Going by
the law laid down by this Court in Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande
v Uttam, their actions are completely protect

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.