LexSHAHED KAMAL & ORS. versus M/S A. SURTI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1275 : 2025 INSC 502 Shahed Kamal & Ors. v. M/s A. Surti Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 2033 of 2025) 17 April 2025 [K.V. Viswanathan* and N. Kotiswar Singh, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the complaint filed by the respondent makes out a case for offences punishable under Section 500 read with Section 34, IPC against the appellants. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.499 Exception 9, 500 r/w 34 – Defamation – When not – Principle of qualified privilege – Scope of Exception 9 to s.499 – Constitution of India – Articles 19(1)(a), (b) and (c) – Appellants-home buyers, not satisfied with the services provided by the respondent-developer, protested against the developer by erecting a banner visible to public at large – Complaint filed by the respondent u/s.500 r/w s.34 – Summons issued against the appellants – Appellants’ case, if falls within the exception 9 to s.499: Held: Yes – Under the 9th Exception to s.499 if the imputation is made in good faith for the protection of the person making it or for another person or for the public good it is not defamation – In a business relationship like that of a builder and home-buyer, certain allowances in the use of phraseology in communication should be provided as long as the deployment of the phraseology in question is based on good faith – The language employed could be a clear pointer to decide whether the accused in the case has exceeded his privilege – One of the tests to decide whether the case falls within the 9th exception is the choice of words employed in the impugned publication – In the instant case, all that the banner depicts is what the appellants thought were their grievances against the respondent with whom they had a business relationship – Careful choice of the words, the conscious avoidance of intemperate, rude, offensive or abusive language and the peaceful manner of protest, * Author 1276 [2025] 4 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports all point to the fact that to protect their legitimate interests and the interest of the other homeowners and without any malice and in good faith the erection of the banner was done – Appellants did not transgress into the offending zone – Their case falls within the sweep, scope and ambit of exception 9 to s.499 – Their peaceful protest is protected by Article 19(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Constitution of India – Impugned judgment of High Court, set aside – Complaint alongwith order issuing summons quashed and set aside. [Paras 17, 22, 24, 30, 35] Constitution of India – Articles 19(1)(a), (b) and (c); 19(2) – Dissent and Disagreement within permissible limits – Right to protest peacefully – Peaceful pamphleteering – Discussed. [Paras 27-29, 31-34] Penal Code, 1860 – 9th Exception to s.499 vis-a-vis 1st Exception – Discussed. [Paras 19, 20] Case Law Cited Iveco Magirus Brandschutztechnik GMBH v. Nirmal Kishore Bhartiya and Anr. [2023] 13 SCR 220 : (2024) 2 SCC 86 – relied on. Chaman Lal v. State of Punjab [1970] 3 SCR 913 : (1970) 1 SCC 590; Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [1965] 3 SCR 235 : 1965 SCC OnLine SC 118; Denman v. Bigg; S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal and Another [2010] 5 SCR 322 : (2010) 5 SCC 600; Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, Ministry of Law and Others [2016] 3 SCR 865 : (2016) 7 SCC 221; Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra and Another [2024] 3 SCR 317 : (2024) 4 SCC 156; Anita Thakur and Others v. Government of Jammu and Kashmir and Others [2016] 4 SCR 50 : (2016) 15 SCC 525; Tata Press Ltd. v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. [1995] Supp. 2 SCR 467 : (1995) 5 SCC 139 – referred to. Kuruppanna Goundan v. Kuppuswami Mudaliar, 1935 MWN 365; Valmiki Faleiro v. Mrs. Lauriana Fernandes and Others, etc., 2005 SCC OnLine Bom 1584; Ramachandra Venkataramanan v. Shapoorji Pallonji & Company Ltd. and Another, 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 524; Municipal Board Konch v. Ganesh Prasad Chaturvedi, 1951 SCC OnLine All 117; Queen-Empress v. E.M. Slater (1891) ILR 15 Bom 351 – referred to. Organization for A Better Austin v. Jerome M. Keefe (1971) 402 U.S. 415; Concerned Consumers League v. O’Neill, 371 F Supp. 644 (E.D. Wis. 1974) – referred to. [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1277 Shahed Kamal & Ors. v. M/s A. Surti Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Books and Periodicals Cited P. Ramanatha Aiyar’s Advanced Law Lexicon 3rd Edition – referred to. List of Acts Penal Code, 1860; Constitution of India; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Maharashtr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.