Jharkhand High Court
Anita Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 August, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
( 2025:JHHC:21763 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.3429 of 2019
------
Anita Devi, aged about 34 years, D/o of Sunil Kumar Sharma,
resident of village-Sonbad (Ghorthambha), P.O. Giridih, P.S.
Dhanwar, District Giridih.
... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, and
2. Dr. Kiran Kaushal, aged about 42 years, W/o Kaushlendra Kumar,
resident of Kaushal Clinic, Kalyandih, P.O.-Pachamba, P.S.-Giridih,
District-Giridih.
... Opposite Parties
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vishal Kumar, Advocate
: Ms. Ishani Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Addl.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Amit Kr. Verma, Advocate
: Mr. Ashutosh Anand, Advocate
: Mr. Ashish Kr. Thakur, Advocate
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
with a prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 14.08.2019 passed in Cr.
Revision No.94 of 2019 by the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih whereby and
where under the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih dismissed the criminal
revision after finding that there is no infirmity or illegality in the order dated
28.03.2019 passed by the learned J.M.-1st Class, Giridih in Complaint Case
No.340 of 2014 by which the learned J.M.-1st Class, Giridih has found prima facie
1 Cr. M.P. No.3429 of 2019
( 2025:JHHC:21763 )
case to constitute the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal
Code against the petitioner.
3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner made false imputations
concerning the complainant, who is a doctor by profession and is a medical
practitioner and also runs a clinic; intending to harm her reputation and
knowing and having reason to believe the imputations on the complainant that
she has removed one kidney of the petitioner while performing a surgery for
removal of uterus of the petitioner, with the intention of selling the said kidney
of the petitioner and when the petitioner went to the clinic of the complainant
with the report, the complainant abused the petitioner and drove her out by
pushing her.
4. On the basis of complaint, statement on solemn affirmation and
statement of the enquiry witnesses, the learned J.M.-1st Class, Giridih found
prima facie case to constitute the offence punishable under Section 500 of the
Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. The said order was challenged before
the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih in Cr. Revision No.94 of 2019 vide order
dated 14.08.2019 and the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih after considering the
materials in the record dismissed the same as already indicated above.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the
petitioner is false. The contention of the petitioner made in her report to the
Deputy Commissioner, Giridih basing upon which an enquiry was setup by
the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih and the same was published in the
newspaper was true. It is next submitted that the act of the petitioner comes
under the 8th exception of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code which reads as
under:-
2 Cr. M.P. No.3429 of 2019
( 2025:JHHC:21763 )
Section 499 – Defamation
Eighth Exception.–Accusation preferred in good faith to
authorised person–It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an
accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful
authority over that person with respect to the subject-matter of
accusation.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the accusations of
the petitioner are in good faith and was made to a lawful authority with respect
to the subject matter of the accusations, hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as
prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P, be allowed.
7. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the
opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the
petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P and submit that the petitioner
deliberately made imputations in writing concerning the complainant
intending to harm her reputation and also knowing and having reason to
believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of the complainant by
making baseless allegation that the complainant with intention to do the
business of selling kidney has removed the left kidney of the petitioner, which
is an absurdity, as kidney of a person is not a commodity which can be sold to
anyone and in the absence of any material to suggest as to whom the same was
sold and further to aggravate the damage to the reputation of the complainant,
the petitioner has further made allegations falsely that the petitioner went to
the clinic of the complainant and there she was abused and driven out from the
clinic without such incident having ever occurred and the same was done
intentionally and not in good faith rather with the deliberate knowledge of
harming the reputation of the complainant, hence, it is submitted that the
imputations made against the complainant by the petitioner having not made
3 Cr. M.P. No.3429 of 2019
( 2025:JHHC:21763 )
in good faith; the allegation do not come under the 8th exception of Section 499
of the India Penal Code. Hence, it is submitted that there is no illegality in
either the order passed by the learned J.M.-1st Class, Giridih or the order passed
by the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih. It is lastly submitted that this Cr.M.P.,
being without any merit, be dismissed.
8. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully
going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention
here that the only defence of the petitioner is that she made the accusations in
good faith which is controverted by the complainant. The complainant
specifically has taken the plea that the accusations against her was not made in
good faith rather imputations were made with the knowledge and intention to
harm the reputation of the complainant and her clinic. It is a settled principle of
law that those who plead exception must prove it as has been held by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M.A. Rumugam vs. Kittu alias
Krishnamoorthy reported in (2009) 1 SCC 101. It is also a settled principle of
law that for the purpose of bringing any case within the purview of 8th and 9th
exceptions appended to section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, it would be
necessary for the person who pleads the exception to prove it. He has to prove
good faith for the purpose of protection of the interest of the person making it
or any other person or for the public good, so, it is needless to mention that it is
the defence of the petitioner that the imputations were made in good faith;
which is a subject matter of trial. Therefore, this Court in exercise of its power
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. cannot conduct a mini trial so as to arrive at a
conclusion as to whether such allegations were made in good faith or not,
hence, this Court is of the considered view that the accusations made against
4 Cr. M.P. No.3429 of 2019
( 2025:JHHC:21763 )
the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety then this same prima
facie constitutes the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal
Code.
9. In view of the discussions made above, there is no justifiable reason to
interfere with the order dated 14.08.2019 passed in Cr. Revision No.94 of 2019
by the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih or the order dated 28.03.2019 passed by
the learned J.M.-1st Class, Giridih in Complaint Case No.340 of 2014 in exercise
of its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
10. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed.
11. In view of disposal of the instant Cr.M.P., the interim relief granted vide
order dated 27.01.2020, is vacated.
12. Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned forthwith.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 04th of August, 2025
AFR/ Abhiraj
5 Cr. M.P. No.3429 of 2019