KISHORE BALKRISHNA NAND versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

Citation: [2023] 11 S.C.R. 34 · Decided: 02-08-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 11 S.C.R. 34 : 2023 INSC 675 
34
CASE DETAILS
KISHORE BALKRISHNA NAND
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 2291 of 2011)
AUGUST 02, 2023
[J. B. PARDIWALA AND MANOJ MISRA, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration : Whether the allegations made in the 
complaint in the good faith addressed to the lawful authority-Sub Divisional 
Magistrate, make out an off ence of defamation under Section 500 IPC or not.
Penal Code, 1860 – s.499, eighth exception, s. 500 – Accusation 
preferred in good faith – When not defamation:
Held : Accusation in the complaint preferred in good faith against 
any person, to a person in lawful authority with regard to the subject-matter 
of accusation, is not a defamation – By perusing the allegations made in the 
complaint, no case for defamation made out – Impugned order passed by 
the High Court set aside – Original order passed by the Magistrate issuing 
summons, quashed and set aside. [Paras 16 and 17]
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
2291 of 2011.
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.02.2010 of the High Court 
of Bombay at Nagpur in CRLWP No. 676 of 2009.
Appearances:
Satyajit A Desai, Anshuman Ashok, Siddharth Gautam, Abhinav K. 
Mutyalwar, Gajanan N Tirthkar, Vijay Raj Singh Chouhan, Ms. Anagha S. 
Desai, Advs. for the Appellant.
35
KISHORE BALKRISHNA NAND v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, 
Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Bharat Bagla, Sourav Singh, Aditya Krishna, 
Advs. for the Respondents.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
ORDER
1. The respondent No.2 (original complainant) although served with 
the notice issued by this Court, yet has chosen not to remain present before 
this Court, either in-person or through an advocate, and oppose this appeal.
2. This is an appeal at the instance of the original accused summoned 
for the off ence of defamation punishable under Section 500 of the Indian 
Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”) and is directed against the order passed by 
the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, dated 03.02.2010 in 
Criminal Writ Petition No.676 of 2009, by which the High Court rejected the 
writ petition fi led by the appellant – Kishore Balkrishna Nand and thereby 
declined to quash the order of issue of process by the Magistrate for the 
off ence of defamation.
3. It appears from the materials on record that the appellant herein 
lodged a complaint in writing addressed to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate 
(for short, “the SDM”) stating that the respondent no.2 herein (original 
complainant) had put up a shop by encroaching upon some land.   In the 
complaint. the appellant is said to have further stated that such shop put up 
by the complainant was creating nuisance, as many anti-social elements 
and road romeos had started visiting the said shop and were creating all 
sorts of problems.
4. The SDM upon receipt of the complaint dated 25.01.2002 fi led 
by the appellant issued notice to the complainant. While the proceedings 
before the SDM were pending, the complainant thought fi t to lodge a private 
complaint in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Worora, Chandrapur, State 
of Maharashtra for the off ence of defamation. The learned Magistrate took 
cognizance on the said complaint and issued process. The cognizance for 
the off ence of defamation was taken by the Magistrate on the basis of the 
averments said to have been made by the appellant in his written complaint 
addressed to the SDM, referred to above.
36
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 11 S.C.R.
5. As the record reveals, the appellant thereafter moved an application 
before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate with a prayer that the order of 
issue of process be recalled. The Magistrate concerned recalled the order. The 
complainant being aggrieved by such order of recall passed by the Magistrate, 
challenged the same before the Sessions Court by fi ling a revision application. 
The revision application was allowed and the order recalling the order of issue 
of process was quashed. In such circumstances, the appellant went before the 
High Court. In the High Court, the appellant thought fi t not to press his petition 
and withdrew the same.
6. Eight years thereafter the appellant thought fi t to challenge the original 
order of issue of process before the High Court. The High Court without entering 
into the merits of the matter, declined to entertain such pe

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