12/26/2018 Geetha vs A.K.

Dhamodharan on 28 June, 2011

Main Search Premium MembersAdvanced Search Disclaimer Mobile View
Cites 7 docs - [View All]
Section 499 in The Indian Penal Code
Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code
Section 501 in The Indian Penal Code
Section 13(1)(i) in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 502 in The Indian Penal Code
Citedby 3 docs
Alli Rani Joseph Mathew vs P.Arun Kumar on 3 August, 2012
Mr.Mohanadevi vs Dr.C.V.Ranjan on 12 February, 2015
Bikramjit Ahluwalia & Ors. vs Simran Ahluwalia & Anr. on 1 May, 2015

Get this document in PDF Print it on a file/printer View the actual judgment from court
Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. User Queries
Free for one month and pay only if you like it. 499
section 499
Madras High Court defamation citedby:1408202
Geetha vs A.K.Dhamodharan on 28 June, 2011 defamation citedby:1041742
defamation
imputation
adultery
private complaint
499 ipc
499 of indian penal code
sec. 499 ipc
sec.499 of ipc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
section 499 indian penal code
DATED: 28.06.2011 subjudice
fifth exception
CORAM
section 499 500

THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.MALA divorce filter: declaration suit

CRL.R.C.No. 784 of 2009

Geetha .. Petitioner/Complainant

..Vs..

A.K.Dhamodharan .. Respondent/Accused

Prayer:- This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C.,
to revise the order dated 07.07.2009, passed in Crl.M.P.No.2714 of 2008, on the file of the
Judicial Magistrate's Court No.I, Tindivanam.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Thanjan

For Respondent : Mr.S.Saravana Kumar

ORDER

This criminal revision has been preferred against the dismissal of the private complaint filed under
Section 200 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner/wife against the respondent/husband for the offence under
Sections 499, 500 and 501 I.P.C.

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner/wife submitted that both the petitioner/wife and the
respondent/husband fell in love and their marriage was performed on 17.02.1989. In Thindivanam,
they purchased a house property in the name of the petitioner/wife. The respondent/husband forced the
petitioner/wife to transfer the property stands in her name, thereby linking the friend of complainant's
elder son. In pursuance of the same, the respondent/husband filed H.M.O.P.No.56/2008, on the file of
Sub-Court, Tindivanam, for dissolution of marriage on the ground of adultery. He also filed a suit in
O.S.No.59/2008 before the Sub-Court, Tindivanam, for declaration of title to the suit property (i.e.) the
house property, which stands in the name of the petitioner/wife. So the petitioner/wife preferred private
complaint, but the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tindivanam, has not considered the aspects in

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/144927689/ 1/3
12/26/2018 Geetha vs A.K.Dhamodharan on 28 June, 2011

proper perspective, dismissed the private complaint stating that no prima facie case has been made out.
Furthermore, the learned Magistrate misconstrued Fifth Exception of Section 499 I.P.C. is applicable to
the case. Hence, he prayed for setting aside the order of dismissal of private complaint and for allowing
of this revision.

3.The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent herein filed
H.M.O.P.No.56/2008 for dissolution of marriage on the ground of adultery and also filed a suit in
O.S.No.59/2008 for declaration of title to the suit property and both were pending before the Sub-
Court, Tindivanam. Since the cases are subjudice, the petitioner can invoke exception under Section
499 I.P.C. That factum has been correctly considered by the learned Magistrate and came to the correct
conclusion that no prima facie case has been made against the respondent to take private complaint. So
the dismissal order passed by the Court below does not warrant any interference and therefore, he
prayed for the dismissal of the revision.

4.Considered the submissions made on both sides and the materials available on record.

5.Admitted facts are the revision petitioner and the respondent are husband and wife. The
respondent/husband herein has filed H.M.O.P.No.56/2008 for divorce on the ground of adultery and
cruelty under Sections 13(1)(i) and 13(1)(i)(a) of Hindu Marriage Act and the copy of the petition was
marked as Ex.P1. The respondent/husband also filed a suit in O.S.No.59/2008 for declaration of title
and the copy of the plaint was marked as Ex.P2. Before preferring private complaint, the
petitioner/accused issued Ex.P3 notice to the respondent/husband and the postal acknowledgement
card was marked as Ex.P4. The revision petitioner examined herself as P.W.1 and in her evidence, she
stated that without any evidence, her husband pleaded that she is having adultery life with one Anju
alias Prakash, who is none other than friend of her elder son. Since the respondent/husband filed a suit
with false and perverse allegations by making derogatory statements against the petitioner/accused, she
preferred private complaint.

6.On perusal of the divorce petition under Ex.P1, it was specifically mentioned that the wife is leading
adultery life with Anju alias Prakash, who was added as second respondent therein. In the suit also, the
respondent/husband referred to her wife is leading adultery life with Anju alias Prakash.

7.At this juncture, it is appropriate to consider Section 499 I.P.C. , which is extracted as follows:

"499-Defamation:

Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations,

makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having
reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the
cases hereinafter excepted, of defame that person.

Explanation 1-It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation
would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his
family or other near relatives.

Explanation 2-It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an

association or collection of persons as such.

Explanation 3-An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to
defamation.

Explanation 4-No imputation is said to harm a person's reputation, unless that imputation directly or
indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or
lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that
person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state
generally considered as disgraceful."

As per chapter XXI, Sections 499, 500, 501 and 502 I.P.C., provide protection to a man's reputation.
Reputation is nothing but opinion of others about himself. There will be no defamation unless there is

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/144927689/ 2/3
12/26/2018 Geetha vs A.K.Dhamodharan on 28 June, 2011

publication. There are certain exceptions of defamation. Truth is important defence for defamation.

8.Now it is appropriate to incorporate Fifth Exception of Section 499 I.P.C., which is as follows:

"Fifth Exception:-Merits of case decided in Court conduct of witnesses and others concerned:--It is not
defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the merits of any case, civil or
criminal, which has been decided by a Court of Justice, or respecting the conduct of any person as a
party, witness or agent, in any such case, or respecting the character of such person, as far as his
character appears in that conduct, and no further."

Here, it is pertinent to note that admittedly, the case is subjudice and it is yet to be disposed of. It is
confined to comments on cases which are decided by Court and not to those cases which are subjudice.
It does not cover pending matters in Court. Pending matters are immune from comments. Considering
the same, the respondent/husband herein has filed a divorce petition on the ground of adultery and
cruelty. He also filed a suit and made an allegation against her wife, stating that she is leading adultery
life with one Anju @ Prakash, who is none other than friend of her elder son. He also pleaded that it is
an illegal act and the case is yet to be disposed of. In such circumstances, whether the fact has been
true or not is yet to be decided. Hence, whether the statement is true or defamatory and that has been
decided after the disposal of the case. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion, as per the dictum of
1987 (3) SCC 34, pending matters are immune from comments made by the parties. The averments
mentioned in the pleadings filed before the judicial forum is not coming under the purview of Section
499 I.P.C., wherein the proceedings are pending and subjudice. Hence, there is no prima facie case has
been made out for taking cognizable offence under Sections 499, 500, 501 and 502 I.P.C. against the
respondent/husband. So the learned Magistrate has considered all the aspects in proper perspective and
came to the correct conclusion and hence, the criminal revision is dismissed as devoid of merits.

9.In fine, The Criminal Revision is dismissed.

The order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tindivanam, is hereby confirmed.

kj To

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tindivanam.

2.The Record Keeper Criminal Section, High Court Madras

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/144927689/ 3/3