SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

Page 1 Friday, January 12, 2024

Printed For: sakshi chaplot, Nirma University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Criminal Misc. Application No. 3146 of 2010

D B Corp Ltd v. State of Gujarat

2010 SCC OnLine Guj 9290

In the High Court of Gujarat

(BEFORE AKIL KURESHI, J.)

D B Corp Ltd .…. Applicant(s)

v.
State of Gujarat & 1 .…. Respondent(s)
Mr AR Gupta for Applicant(s) : 1,
Ms ML Shah Asst. Public Prosecutor for Respondent(s) : 1,
Party-in-Person, Respondent(s) : 2,
Criminal Misc. Application No. 3146 of 2010
Decided on August 23, 2010
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for respondent No. 1-State
and respondent No. 2, original complainant, who is present in person, for final disposal
of the petition.
2. This petition is filed by the original accused No. 1, namely M/s. D.B. Corporation
Limited, seeking quashing of the complaint at Annexure-A, bearing Criminal Case No.
111 of 2010, dated 10.08.2009, filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Deesa.
3. The said complaint was filed by respondent No. 2 before the learned Magistrate,
alleging the offences punishable under Sections 500, 501, 502 read with Section 114
of the Penal Code, 1860.
4. It appears, in the Divya Bhaskar newspaper, dated 18.06.2009, under the head
of in extortion case in Deesa, father and son are sent to jail, a news item was
published, suggesting that respondent No. 2 and his son were involved in a criminal
case of demanding extortion money and the complainant had ultimately lodged the
complaint before the police, against them. It was the case of respondent No. 2 that
the said news item was defamatory and thereby the accused and, particularly, the
petitioner committed the offences punishable under Sections 500, 501, 502 read with
Section 114 of the Penal Code, 1860.
5. In the complaint, respondent No. 2 has alleged that the said news item, in the
newspaper, carried defamatory news. The newspaper has wide circulation and
publication of the news in the said newspaper has resulted into damage to the
reputation of the complainant and his son. The complainant was examined by the
learned Magistrate on 06.10.2009, thereafter, the learned Magistrate, on 13.01.2010,
was pleased to issue process under Sections 500, 501, 502 read with Section 114 of
the Penal Code, 1860.
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that the narration in the news item
was exactly as the allegations made in the complaint itself. The complaint is lodged
against present respondent No. 2 before the Deesa Police Station. The news item only
reproduced the contents of the complaint and the same would, therefore, not amount
to defamation. She relied on a decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in
“(Shri) Chimanbhai Somabhai Patel v. Mithu Bava” reported in 1984 GLH (U.J.) 107,
wherein it was observed that publication of a news item, without twisting the same, to
highlight circumstances which might not be true, may amount to defamation. But,
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 2 Friday, January 12, 2024
Printed For: sakshi chaplot, Nirma University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

publication of an item of news, without twisting the same or without an ulterior

motive, can never amount to defamation. A person, who is arrested in connection with
the smuggling of silver would be well-advised, not to take his reputation to be so high
that it can be dented by such a news item, being published in the newspaper.
7. The respondent No. 2, appearing in person, vehemently contended that news of
his son being arrested, were false. Moreover, the newspaper did not publish the
counter allegations of respondent No. 2 of being ill-treated by the police authorities.
He had also given prior notice before lodging the complaint. He, therefore, prayed that
no case is made out for quashing. In support of his submissions, he relied on following
decisions:
(1) In the case of “Ram Babu v. State of Madhya Pradesh” reported in (2009) 7 SCC
194, in which the Apex Court stressed on the need for a reasoned order, while
quashing the complaint and the summons issued by the Court.
(2) In “Bibhuti Bhusan Das Gupta v. State of West Bengal” reported in AIR 1969
381, in which the Apex Court observed that even when the personal appearance of the
accused is dispensed with, examination of pleader in his absence, is not sufficient
compliance, except, where the accused is a company or the juridical person. I do not
see how the said decision would apply in the present case.
(3) In the case of “Kishor Kumar Gyanchandani v. G.D. Mehrotra” reported in AIR
2002 SC 483, in which the Apex Court observed that the power of the Magistrate,
under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is not lost merely because he
accepted the final form submitted by the police, investigating the incident in question,
on the basis of an FIR.
This question is not germane in the present proceedings.
8. Considering the submission made and perusing the documents on record, it
appears that the news item, dated 18.06.2009, published by the petitioner is
substantially, if not entirely, based on a complaint dated 16.06.2009. In that view of
the matter, question is whether the offence of ‘defamation’ would be made out. The
term ‘defamation’ is defined under Section 499 of the Penal Code, 1860 as under:
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
expected, to defame that person.
9. There are explanations and exceptions to the said provision, particularly, the
fourth exception, reads as under:
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 state generally
considered as disgraceful.
10. In the present case, when I find that newspaper report is substantially based
on a complaint, lodged against respondent No. 2, the newspaper cannot be blamed for
carrying any defamatory items. It is not as if the news paper reported an incident
allegedly taken place. Newspaper only published news of filing of a complaint against
respondent No. 2 and his son and narrated the allegations made, therein. This was
also the view expressed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of (Shri)
Chimanbhai Somabhai Patel (Supra).
11. Allegation that the newspaper published a false report of the son of respondent
No. 2 being arrested has to be examined on the basis of the impugned complaint. It is
the part of the complaint that such news were false and defamatory. This averment of
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 3 Friday, January 12, 2024
Printed For: sakshi chaplot, Nirma University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

respondent No. 2, therefore, cannot be accepted.

12. In the result, I find that the complaint does not disclose the offences
punishable under Sections 500, 501, 502 read with Section 114 of the Penal Code,
1860. Same is, therefore, QUASHED qua the present PETITIONER, alone. Petition is
disposed of, accordingly.
———
Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/
notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be liable in any manner by reason of any mistake
or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/
rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The
authenticity of this text must be verified from the original source.