LexSHATRUGHNA PRASAD SINHA versus RAJBHAU SURAJMAL RATHI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-
SHATRUGHNA PRASAD SINHA
A
v.
RAJBHAU SURAJMAL RATHI AND ORS.
SEPTEMBER 10, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.)
B
Indian Penal Code, 1860 :
Sections 295-A, 499, 500 r/w. 34-Defa111ation-lnte1view _to a film
magazine-Appellant making statements against a pa1ticular community-Al-
C
leged to be deliberate, malicious and outraging the religious feel in gs of that
commw1ity-Co111plaint-Magistrate taking cognizance and issuing notice to
appellant-C/1allenge before High Cowt which held that no offence 1111der
S.295A made 011t b11t the allegations constitllle prima facie offence triable by
Magistrate under S.500--011 appeal held the allegations do not contain
essential facts constitllting offence under S.295A-The complaint filed before D
the !11dicial Magistrate Pune does not contain allegations to constitllte 011
offence of defamation punishable under S.50()-f{ence that complaint
q11ashed-Co111plaint filed before the Judicial Magistrate Nasik-High Cowt
was right in refusing to quash the complaint under S.500.
E
CRIMINAL APPELLATL JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
1696 of 1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.1.91 of the Bombay High
Court in Cr!. W.P. No. 1545 of 1990.
Indrajeet Roy, P.N. Misra for the Appellant.
Sushi! Kumar Jain, (A.C.) and Ms. Pratibha Jain for the Respon-
dents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
F
G
Though the respondents were duly served and on an occasion ap-
peared in person, subsequently they did not appear. Resultantly, we re-
quested Shri Sushi! Kumar Jain, Advocate of the Bar to assist the Court H
771
772
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A
as amicus cwiae. We place on record our deep appreciation for the
valuable assistance rendered by him.
B
c
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order of
the High Court of Bombay made on January 21, 1991 in Cr!. Writ Petition
No. 1545 of 1990. The facts relevant for the purpose of this case and we
proceed on the basis thereof are that allegations were made in the com-
plaint filed by the respondents in the Courts of Magistrate at Pune and
Nasik; we deal with those allegations as they constitute offence for which
the judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, could take cognizance. In paragraph 2 it
is narrated that the complainant-respondent was a social activist belonging
to the Marwari Community, and that the respondent- second accused
respectively is the editor and publisher of Stardust, Film Magazine. An
interview she had with the appellant in June 1989, came to be published at
page 82 of that magazine. During the course of the interview, the appellant
was alleged to have made statements outraging the religious feeling of the
D Marwari community and also defamed the members of Marwari com-
munity as a class. In the complaint filed at Pune, what he has stated is as
under:
E
F
G
"The Complainant submits that in June 89 thr. Accused No. 1 has
with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the re1.igious
feelings of Marwari Community made the said statement. By the
statement of the ;}ccused No.1, the structure of National Integrity
is being paralysed. The feelings of Marwari Community also being
hurt by the Statement made by the Accused No. 1. The Statement
of Accused No. 1 goes to show that Marwari Community is not a
Class belonging to India and they have not faith and love towards
India, their ,mother land. It is implied from the said statement that
Marwaris are traitors and enemies of India. So also accused No.
2 has also printed and published the said statement in 'Star Dust'
Magazine of 1989 with deliberate and malicious intention of outc
raging the religious feelings of Marwari Community."
The rest of the paragraphs are only the consequential narration of
the allegations in paragraph 3. According to the respondents, these allega-
tions constitute offence punishable under Section 295-A and Section 500
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC, for short). The
H Magistrate had taken cognizance and issued notice to the appellant for
'
S.P. SINHAv. R.S. RATHI
773
appearance. When it was challenged in the writ petition, the learned single A
Judge of the High Court had held that on a reading of the complaint as a
whole, no offence under Sectiou 295A could be made out; however, the
· ·allegations constitute prim a f acie offence triable by the Magistrate under
Section 500, IPC. Thus, these apExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.