Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sripati Sarkar & Ors vs Smt. Leena Chatterjee & Another on 28 March, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta
C.R.R. 365 of 2014
With
CRAN 2/2015 (Old CRAN 2543/2015)
Sripati Sarkar & Ors.
Versus
Smt. Leena Chatterjee & Another
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajdeep Mazumder, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Pinaki Ranjan Chakraborty, Adv.
Ms. Triparna Roy, Adv.
Mr. Soumya Raha, Adv.
Heard on : 25.02.2025
Judgment on : 28.03.2025
2
Ajay Kumar Gupta, J:
1.
By filing this Criminal Revisional application under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners being
the accused persons seeking for quashing of the proceeding being
C.R. Case No. 545 of 2013 under Sections 500/506/120B of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 pending before the Learned Judicial
Magistrate, 4th Court at Burdwan.
2. The brief facts of the case are essential for the purpose of fair
and proper disposal of this case as under:
2a. One Sri Bijoy Kumar Bhattacharya (since deceased) was a
great, well-known educationist and freedom fighter was the founder
of an educational institution known as ‘Siksha Niketan’. The said
institution has a branch known as ‘Satish Chandra Shilpa Bidyalaya’.
2b. In the year 2000, one Debangshu Das assumed the charge of
the Superintendent of the said Bidyalaya. After taking the charge of
the said institution, the said person started to behave inappropriate
manner which is unbecoming of a Superintendence of the institution.
Several people made several allegations against him, inter alia, are as
follows: –
i. The said person used to compel the students to
attend party’s meetings by closing the school.
3ii. The said person used to stay at students’ hostel till
late night and to take intoxicating materials with the
students.
iii. The said person had appointed a lady known to be
of immoral character and living in adultery as the in-
charge of the ladies’ hostel of the said institution.iv. The said person used to misappropriate the
money/property of the institution obtained from the
students’ caution money and also misappropriated
huge amount of money by selling old properties of the
school.
v. The said person had employed some persons in the
said school who are known as notorious antisocial of
the locality.
2c. The petitioners are local educated persons of the village with
significant contribution to the school were deeply concerned by the
illegal activities taking place and in effect to protect the students and
villagers’ interest submitted a confidential complaint along with large
number of villagers against the said person as well as opposite party
no. 1 before the Hon’ble Chief Minister, who is the constitutional
head of the State Executive in West Bengal.
2d. The said confidential letter of complaint was never made
public at large in the locality and the accused/petitioners had no
4intention to cause any harm to the reputation of the said person as
well as opposite party no. 1. There was no intent to damage the
complainant’s character in the eyes of public.
2e. Additionally, petitioners also informed the Hon’ble Minister
of Technical Education Department, Government of West Bengal in
hope of a proper enquiry. However, the petitioners remain unaware, if
any action has been taken against Leena Chatterjee or not on the
basis of said complaint.
2f. Subsequently, the petitioners were served with the notice
and copy of the complaint of C.R. Case No. 545 of 2013 filed before
the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Burdwan. The said complaint
filed under Section 200 of the CrPC was delivered without supporting
documents, suggesting that Leena Chatterjee treated the same as
defamation case. However, the petitioners’ intention was not to
defame the complainant but to uncover the truth.
2g. After filing of the complaint, the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Burdwan by Order No. 1 dated 22.07.2013 took
cognizance of the case and transferred it to the Court of the Learned
Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court at Burdwan for enquiry and trial. The
Learned Magistrate examined the complainant/opposite party no. 1
on 03.08.2013 and issued process to the accused/petitioners herein
5and fixed a date on 31.12.2013 for service return and appearance.
The petitioners appeared and obtained regular bail from the Learned
Trial Court.
2h. The petitioners contended that the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate acted with material irregularity and failed to apply
judicious mind in not recognizing that the complainant/opposite
party no. 1 filed the complaint case as a desperate attempt to stop
the serious enquiry going on against the complainant/opposite party
no. 1. As such, the complaint is mala fide, motivated and is an abuse
of the process of law and the proceeding is liable to be quashed.
Hence, this Criminal Revisional application.
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:
3. Mr. Mazumder, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioners along with others submitted that a complaint under
Section 200 of the CrPC has been filed by the complainant/opposite
party no. 1 which is totally a mala fide, motivated and frivolous
complaint. The petitioners along with 287 local villagers submitted a
mass petition to the Hon’ble Chief Minister of West Bengal with their
signatures and those persons are the local villagers of the locality
where the institution is situated. The complaint was made
confidentially which was not at the domain of the public. The written
6
complaint was signed by 287 villagers save and except petitioner no.
2 who had not signed the said written complaint but he was also
implicated in the court complaint.
4. Despite the said facts, the complainant/opposite party no. 1
filed a frivolous complaint against the present petitioners including
the petitioner no. 2 with an allegation that they have committed
offence punishable under Sections 500/506/34 of the IPC. From the
complaint itself, it appears that upon receipt of the written mass
complaint, the Department of Technical Education and Training sent
the said mass petition to the Director of Directorate of Industrial
Training, Bikash Bhawan for causing enquiry into the said mass
petition and/or complaint and, accordingly, enquiry was initiated
against the complainant/opposite party no. 1. In such a situation,
the petitioners remain in dark regarding the final outcome of the
proceeding or enquiry.
5. Allegations made against the petitioners by the complainant
fall under the Exception 8 of Section 499 of the IPC. The allegations
are baseless, yet without considering these facts, the Learned Trial
Court has issued summons and started proceeding under Sections
500/506/120B of the IPC though no sufficient ingredients were
disclosed by the complainant.
7
6. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners
has placed reliance of two judgments in support of his contention
that whatever allegations made against the present petitioners are
false, frivolous and mala fide and none of the ingredients fulfilled
under Section 500/506/34 of the IPC as such proceeding is liable to
be quashed. Those judgments are as under: –
i. M/s. Pataka Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. The State of
West Bengal & Ors.1;
ii. Shatrughna Prasad Sinha Vs. Rajbhau Surajmal
Rathi and Others2.
7. It was further submitted that in order to justify a charge
under Section 500 of IPC, the allegations must satisfy the
requirement of Section 499 of IPC and its accompanying explanation.
The complainant must demonstrate that the statements harm their
reputation directly or indirectly and lower their moral and intellectual
character in the estimation of others.
8. It was further submitted that the accusation made by the
public to the higher authority is not an act of defamation. Therefore,
1
CRR No. 3277 of 2008 with CRR No. 3278 of 2008 with CRR No. 3279 of 2008 with CRR No. 3280 of 2008 with CRR
No. 3283 of 2008
2
(1996) 6 SCC 263.
8
the entire proceeding is an abuse of process of law. It is liable to be
quashed and orders passed therein are also liable to be set aside.
9. On the other hand, none appears on behalf of the opposite
party no. 1/complainant at the time of call despite good service.
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS BY THIS COURT:
10. Heard the arguments and submissions made by the learned
senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and on perusal
of the materials available on record, this Court finds that a written
mass complaint signed by 287 persons including present petitioners
except petitioner no. 2 has been submitted to Hon’ble Chief Minister
and the Hon’ble Minister of Technical Education Department,
Government of West Bengal pointing out several allegations
perpetrated by the complainant/opposite party no. 1 as well as
Debangshu Das as, inter alia, as under:-
i. By renting buses, the said person used to compel
the students to attend marches of CPM party
meetings by closing the school.
ii. The said person used to stay at students’ hostel till
late night and to take intoxicating materials (i.e.
Ganja, alcohol) with the students.
9
iii. The said person had appointed a lady known to be
of immoral character and living in adultery as the in-
charge of the ladies’ hostel of the said institution.
iv. The said person misappropriated Lakhs of money
by selling old machines of the school worth crores of
rupees.
v. The said person used to misappropriate the
students’ caution money.
vi. Disrupting grassroots organizations by engaging in
unethical politics among students.
vii. Exploiting education of institution by appointing a
prostitute, whom he made the hostel superintendent.
viii. He has no relationship with his wife for a long
time due to his dirty behaviour.
ix. One Benim Chatterjee left his wife for dirty
behaviour of his wife.
x. He is consistently involved in multiple financial and
moral corruptions.
xi. The said person had employed some persons in
the said school who are known as notorious
antisocial of the locality.
11. Be that as it may, it is evident from the mass complaint that
a significant number of individuals had appended their signatures to
the aforesaid mass petition against the complainant. However, some
10
of individuals later gave written declarations stating therein that they
did not sign any paper or document in support of any complaint
against the said I.T.I. or any student or any teacher or staff thereof or
against the complainant/opposite party no. 1 and that if anybody has
or had filed any complaint allegedly signed by them, it was declared
therein that the said signatures appearing in the mass written
complaint were forged or their signatures had been obtained falsely
instigating them in respect of some other matter.
12. Those written declarations were also annexed with the
petition. As such, the local people and all concerned of the said
Institution came to learn about the aforesaid false, baseless and
malicious allegations made against the complainant/opposite party
no.1 as well as one Debangshu Das by the accused persons named in
the mass petition and others.
13. In response to the said mass petition/complaint filed against
the complainant, the teachers, students, staff of the said institution
along with several local residents addressed a mass petition dated
21.06.2013 to the Hon’ble Minister-in-Charge of the Department of
Technical Education and Training, Government of West Bengal
refuting the false and baseless allegations made against the
complainant. Thereafter, the Director of the Directorate of Industrial
11
Training, Bikash Bhawan initiated an enquiry into the said mass
petition and/or complaint made by the accused persons. However,
the allegations made against the complainant in the said mass
petition could not be substantiated as the accusers failed to provide
any proof in support of their allegations. Therefore, the imputations
and/or insinuations made against the complainant by the accused
persons in the written mass complaint are not only false and
malicious but also the deliberate intent to remove the complainant
from his position at the helm of affairs of the said Institution. The
ultimate aim of the accused persons was to replace the complainant
as well as one Debangshu Das, but their efforts proved unsuccessful.
14. The complainant asserts that the accused persons have not
only to malign the complainant but they have also tarnished the
image and/or prestige of the complainant in the estimation and/or in
the eyes of all concerned including the teachers, students and staff of
the said Institution and the local residents and also the guardians of
the students. By doing so, the accused persons have committed an
offence of defamation within the meaning of Section 499 of the IPC
which is punishable under Section 500 of IPC. They have also
committed an offence under Section 503, IPC which is punishable
under Section 506(i) of IPC because the accused persons have
12
criminally intimidated the complainant by threatening her with an
injury to her reputation with intent to cause alarm to her.
15. Now, to decide the issue whether the mass complaint made
against the complainant/opposite party no. 1 would constitute an
offence punishable under Sections 500/506/120B of IPC or not?
16. To decide this issue, this Court would like to indicate some
relevant Sections for ready reference as under: –
“S. 500. Punishment for defamation. -Whoever
defames another shall be punished with simple
imprisonment for a term which may extend to two
years, or with fine, or with both.
S. 506: – Punishment for criminal intimidation. –
Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation
shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to two years,
or with fine, or with both;
If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc
– And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt,
or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or
to cause an offence punishable with death or
imprisonment for life, of with imprisonment for a term
which may extend to seven years, or to impute
unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with
13imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
S. 34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. --When a criminal act is done by several persons, in
furtherance of the common intention of all, each of
such persons is liable for that act in the same manner
as if it were done by him alone.
S. 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, to
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.
14
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.
First Exception.–Imputation of truth which public
good requires to be made or published.–It is not
defamation to impute anything which is true
concerning any person, if it be for the public good that
the imputation should be made or published. Whether
or not it is for the public good is a question of fact.
Second Exception.–Public conduct of public
servants.–It is not defamation to express in good
faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of
a public servant in the discharge of his public
functions, or respecting his character, so far as his
character appears in that conduct, and no further.
15
Third Exception.–Conduct of any person touching
any public question.–It is not defamation to
express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting
the conduct of any person touching any public
question, and respecting his character, so far as his
character appears in that conduct, and no further.
Fourth Exception.–Publication of reports of
proceedings of courts.–It is not defamation to
publish substantially true report of the proceedings of
a Court of Justice, or of the result of any such
proceedings.
Explanation.–A Justice of the Peace or other officer
holding an enquiry in open Court preliminary to a trial
in a Court of Justice, is a Court within the meaning of
the above section.
Fifth Exception.–Merits of case decided in Court
or 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.
16
Sixth Exception.–Merits of public performance.–It
is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion
respecting the merits of any performance which its
author has submitted to the judgment of the public, or
respecting the character of the author so far as his
character appears in such performance, and no
further.
Explanation.–A performance may be submitted to the
judgment of the public expressly or by acts on the
part of the author which imply such submission to the
judgment of the public.
Seventh Exception.–Censure passed in good faith
by person having lawful authority over
another.–It is not defamation in a person having
over another any authority, either conferred by law or
arising out of a lawful contract made with that other,
to pass in good faith any censure on the conduct of
that other in matters to which such lawful authority
relates.
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.
17
Ninth Exception.–Imputation made in good faith
by person for protection of his or other’s
interests.–It is not defamation to make an
imputation on the character of another provided that
the imputation be made in good faith for the protection
of the interests of the person making it, or of any
other person, or for the public good.
Tenth Exception.–Caution intended for good of
person to whom conveyed or for public good.–It
is not defamation to convey a caution, in good faith, to
one person against another, provided that such
caution be intended for the good of the person to
whom it is conveyed, or of some person in whom that
person is interested, or for the public good.”
17. Upon careful perusal of aforesaid provisions, it reveals
Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code defines the term ‘Defamation’.
The punishment for Defamation has been laid in Section 500 of
Indian Penal Code. In order to make out an offence punishable under
Section 500 of the IPC, defamation must be proven by showing that a
person through 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
18
reputation of that person is said to defame subject to some exception
mentioned in Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code.
18. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that a mass petition
was submitted alleging illegal activities perpetrated by the
complainant/opposite party no. 1 as well as one Debangshu Das at
the educational institution known as ‘Siksha Niketan’ which has a
branch known as ‘Satish Chandra Shilpa Vidyalaya’. The mass
petition was addressed to the head of the State, the Hon’ble Chief
Minister and other relevant officials seeking for an inquiry and
appropriate action for the benefits of the students and institution.
The allegations against the complainant/opposite party no. 1 as well
as Debangshu Das are under inquiry and investigation. Moreover, it
is essential to establish the existence of mens rea or intention or
knowledge or having a reason to believe on the part of the accused as
the case falls under the Exception 8 of the Section 499 of the IPC.
According to this Exception, it is not defamation if make an
accusation in good faith to a person has lawful authority over that
person with respect to the subject matter of accusation.
19. In the present case, not only the petitioners but more than
280 persons signed the mass petition alleging same allegations
against the complainant/opposite party no. 1 as well as Debangshu
19
Das. The petition was submitted to the appropriate authorities in
exercise of their legal and natural rights, and it was done
confidentially. This mass petition is for the protection of institution or
the students or their own rights and interest cannot be construed as
malice and imputation of reputation in public or society as such,
cannot be said to have been made with intent to defame the
Complainant/opposite party no. 1 as well as Debangshu Das. The
imputations and/or insinuation, which have not harmed her
reputation, directly or indirectly lowered her moral and intellectual
character in the estimation of others. In the event, the moral or
intellectual character of the aggrieved person is not lowered in the
estimation of other persons, making of the imputation cannot per se
lead to commission of the offence of defamation.
20. In the present case, neither the petition of complaint nor the
statement recorded by the Learned Trial Court on solemn affirmation
has alleged that complainant’s reputation and/or intellectual /moral
character of the complainant/opposite party no. 1 was diminished in
the eyes of any other person. The opposite party no. 1/complainant
did not examine any other person to substantiate even prima facie in
the eyes of the said person or others. Opposite party no. 1 has failed
to make out a case of defamation as alleged against the petitioners
without any materials. In absence of mens rea or intention or
20
knowledge or having a reason to believe on the part of the petitioners,
the offence cannot constitute offence of defamation, the continuance
of the impugned proceeding would be a sheer abuse of the process of
court.
21. In M/s. Pataka Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. The State of West
Bengal & Ors., the Hon’ble Court held therein that:
“Defamation is a species of which mens rea is the
genesis. The complaint of all cases cannot be equated
with defamation. The complaint may not have any
mens rea but defamation must have it. Any sort of
allegation with a touch of imputation against any
person per se cannot be categorised as “defamation”.
Had it not been so, there cannot be any birth of
complaint against anybody. Every complaint is more
or less having a touch of imputation. There is a
marked difference between ‘defamation per se’ and
‘implied defamation’, which is prima facie not
actionable. The former manifests only defamation
while the latter is an allegation mixed with
imputation. The allegation necessarily includes
imputation to some extent while the vice versa is not
correct.
Every citizen has a right to freedom of speech subject
to restriction as covered under Section 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution of India. Ventilation of grievances to
superior controlling authority against any Officer in
21
respect of an interest inversely suffered by a person
does not fall within the ambit of Section 499 IPC to
warrant punishment under Section 500 IPC.”
22. The Mass Complaint, filed against the complainant/opposite
party no. 1 by 287 individuals, is privileged in nature as it pertains to
a matter of public interest outweighing the right to reputation. This
privilege can be classified in two types; Absolute and Qualified.
Absolute privilege is when the statements made regardless of how
harsh derogatory, they may be are protected because they relate to a
matter of public concern as in the case of the mass complaint sent to
the higher authority alleging some allegations against the
Complainant/opposite party no. 1 without circulating it to public.
Qualified privilege is when anyone makes any statement in a good
intention and without the intent to defame. In such cases, the
statement does not constitute offence punishable under Section 500
of the Indian Penal Code. Moreover, the ingredients required for an
offence under Section 506 of the IPC are also not fulfilled or found
either in the complaint filed under Section 200 of the CrPC or in the
statement recorded in Solemn Affirmation. Therefore, allowing such
defamation complaints to proceed would amount to an abuse of
process of law.
22
23. In view of the abovementioned facts and circumstances, CRR
No. 365 of 2014 is hereby allowed. CRAN 2/2015 (Old CRAN
2543/2015) and all connected applications, if any, are also, thus,
disposed of.
24. Proceeding being C.R. Case No. 545 of 2013 under Sections
500/506/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 pending before the
Learned Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court at Burdwan is hereby quashed
insofar as to the petitioners are concerned.
25. Let a copy of this Judgment be sent to the Learned Trial
Court for information.
26. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
27. Urgent photostat certified copy of this Judgment, if applied
for, is to be given as expeditiously to the parties on compliance of all
legal formalities.
(Ajay Kumar Gupta, J)
P. Adak (P.A.)
[ad_1]
Source link