LexM/S IVECO MAGIRUS BRANDSCHUTZTECHNIK GMBH versus NIRMAL KISHORE BHARTIYA & ANR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2023] 13 S.C.R. 220 : 2023 INSC 880 220 CASE DETAILS M/S IVECO MAGIRUS BRANDSCHUTZTECHNIK GMBH v. NIRMAL KISHORE BHARTIYA & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 1959 of 2012) OCTOBER 05, 2023 [BELA M. TRIVEDI AND DIPANKAR DATTA, JJ.] HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: (i) Whether, while considering a private complaint alleging defamation, the Magistrate before summoning the accused ought to confi ne himself to the allegations forming part of the petition only or he may, applying his judicial mind to the exceptions to s.499, IPC, dismiss the complaint holding that the facts alleged do not make out a case of defamation? (ii) Whether and, if at all, to what extent, is it open to the High Courts to exercise inherent power saved by s.482, Cr. PC to quash proceedings for defamation by setting aside the summoning order upon extending the benefi t of any of the Exceptions to s.499, IPC? Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Issue Process – Complaint of Defamation – Application of judicial mind by the Magistrate: Held: In the context of a complaint of defamation, at the stage the Magistrate proceeds to issue process, he has to form his opinion based on the allegations in the complaint and other material (obtained through the process referred to in section 200/section 202) as to whether ‘suffi cient ground for proceeding’ exists as distinguished from ‘suffi cient ground for conviction’, which has to be left for determination at the trial and not at the stage when process is issued – Although there is nothing in the law which in express terms mandates the Magistrate to consider whether any of the Exceptions to s. 499, IPC is attracted, there is no bar either – It is not the law that the Magistrate is in any manner precluded from considering if at all any of the Exceptions is attracted in a given case; the Magistrate is under no fetter from so considering, more so because being someone who 221 M/S IVECO MAGIRUS BRANDSCHUTZTECHNIK GMBH v. NIRMAL KISHORE BHARTIYA is legally trained, it is expected that while issuing process he would have a clear idea of what constitutes defamation – If, in the unlikely event, the contents of the complaint and the supporting statements on oath as well as reports of investigation/inquiry reveal a complete defence under any of the Exceptions to s. 499, IPC, the Magistrate, upon due application of judicial mind, would be justifi ed to dismiss the complaint on such ground and it would not amount to an act in excess of jurisdiction if such dismissal has the support of reasons.[Para 45] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 482 – Power of the High Court to quash proceedings for defamation by setting aside the summoning order upon extending the benefi t of any of the Exceptions to s.499, IPC: Held: The exercise of jurisdiction by the High Courts u/s. 482, Cr.P.C., in a case where the off ence of defamation is claimed by the accused to have not been committed based on any of the Exceptions and a prayer for quashing is made, law seems to be well settled that the High Courts can go no further and enlarge the scope of inquiry if the accused seeks to rely on materials which were not there before the Magistrate – This is based on the simple proposition that what the Magistrate could not do, the High Courts may not do – It may not be understood to undermine the High Courts’ powers saved by s.482, Cr.P.C.; such powers are always available to be exercised ex debito justitiae, i.e., to do real and substantial justice for administration of which alone the High Courts exist – The issue of process u/s. 204 r/w. s.200, Cr.P.C. does not ipso facto stand vitiated for non-consideration of the Exceptions to s.499, IPC unless, of course, before the High Court it is convincingly demonstrated that even on the basis of the complaint and the materials that the Magistrate had before him and without there being anything more, the facts alleged do not prima facie make out the off ence of defamation and that consequently, the proceedings need to be closed. [Paras 46 and 47] Penal Code, 1860 – s. 499 – Exceptions to s.499 – Trial Court upon considering the complaint u/s. 200 Cr.P.C. returned a prima facie fi nding in order dated 25.03.2010 that accused no.1, the appellant (accused no.2) and its district manager were responsible for writing, sending, publishing letters containing malicious and defamatory statements and SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 13 S.C.R. 222 consequently summoned the three accused
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.