K. K. MISHRA versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.

Citation: [2018] 5 S.C.R. 315 · Decided: 13-04-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
315
K. K. MISHRA
v.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 547 of 2018)
APRIL 13, 2018
[RANJAN GOGOI, R. BANUMATHI AND
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.199(2) and (4) –
Prosecution case that appellant made defamatory statements against
the Hon’ble Chief Minister of the State in a press conference –
Complaint was filed by the public prosecutor u/s.199(2) after receipt
of sanction from the Competent Authority of the State Government
on the very same day – Appellant convicted u/s.500 IPC by the
Special Judge, trial Court – Appeal against the same pending before
the High Court – Appellant also challenged the maintainability of
criminal proceeding instituted u/s.199(2), which was dismissed by
the High Court – On appeal, held: None of the allegedly defamatory
statements, even if admitted to have been made by the appellant,
can be said to have any reasonable connection with discharge of
public duties by or the office of the Hon’ble Chief Minister – Such
statements may be defamatory but then in the absence of a nexus
between the same and the discharge of public duties, the remedy
u/s.199(2) and (4) Cr.P.C. will not be available – From extract of
cross-examination of the public prosecutor, it is clear that the public
prosecutor had admitted the absence of any scrutiny by him of the
materials on which the prosecution was sought to be launched –
Public Prosecutor further, admitted that he had filed complaint
against the accused appellant on the orders of the State Government
–  A Public Prosecutor filing a complaint u/s. 199 (2) Cr.P.C. without
due satisfaction that the materials/allegations in complaint discloses
an offence against an Authority or against a public functionary
which adversely affects the interests of the State would be abhorrent
to the principles on the basis of which the special provision
u/s.199(2) and (4) Cr.P.C. has been structured – Therefore, complaint
not maintainable – Consequently, order of the trial Court set aside
and appeal pending in the High Court also closed – Penal Code,
1860 – s.500 – Constitution of India – Art. 142.
[2018] 5 S.C.R. 315
315
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
316
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 5 S.C.R.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. If the allegedly defamatory statements, in respect
of which sanction has been accorded to the Public Prosecutor to
file the complaint against the appellant under Section 199 (2)
Cr.P.C. by the order of the State Government are to be carefully
looked into, none of the said statements, even if admitted to have
been made by the appellant, can be said to have any reasonable
connection with the discharge of public duties by or the office of
the Hon’ble Chief Minister.  The appointment of persons from
the area/place to which the wife of the Hon’ble Chief Minister
belongs and the making of phone calls by the relatives of the
Hon’ble Chief Minister have no reasonable nexus with the
discharge of public duties by or the office of the Hon’ble Chief
Minister.  Such statements may be defamatory but then in the
absence of a nexus between the same and the discharge of public
duties of the office,the remedy under Section 199(2) and 199(4)
Cr.P.C. will not be available.It is the remedy saved by the
provisions of sub-section (6) of Section 199 Cr.P.C. i.e. a complaint
by the Hon’ble Chief Minister before the ordinary Court i.e. the
Court of Magistrate which would be available and could have
been resorted to.  [Para 11] [321-G-H; 322-A-C]
2. From the cross-examination of the Public Prosecutor,  it
is clear that the Public prosecutor had admitted the absence of
any scrutiny by him of the materials on which the prosecution is
sought to be launched.  In fact, the Public Prosecutor had gone
to the extent of admitting that he had filed the complaint against
the accused appellant on the orders of the State Government.
[Para 13] [323-A-B]
3. The testimony of the Public Prosecutor in his cross-
examination effectively demonstrates that the wholesome
requirement spelt out by Section 199(2) and 199(4) Cr.P.C., as
expounded by this Court in Subramanian Swamy, has not been
complied with in the present case.  A Public Prosecutor filing a
complaint under Section 199 (2) Cr.P.C. without due satisfaction
that the materials/allegations in complaint discloses an offence
against an Authority or against a public functionary which adversely
affects the interests of the State would be abhorrent to the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
317
principles on 

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