LexM.A. RUMUGAM versus KITTU @ KIRSHNAMOORTHY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 15 S.C.R. 642
A
M.A. RUMUGAM
.v.
KITTU @ KIRSHNAMOORTHY
(Criminal Appeal No. 1749 of 2008)
B
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
c 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
D
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
E 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
~
F
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.
G
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
H
642
I
M.A. RUMUGAM v. KITTU @ KIRSHNAMOORTHY
643
his name in the police complaint has defamed him. A
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.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court ·
8
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 c
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 D
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 E
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 F
.,
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 G
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.
H
[Para 18] [G51-A]
'\
644
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 15 S.C.R.
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]
c
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. 17 49 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.
E
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.
F
2. Applicability of the provisions oExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.