[Defamation] Application Claiming Exception Of 'Good Faith Accusation' Cannot Be Dismissed At Threshold, Requires Trial To Examine: J&K HC

Dismissing a petition seeking the quashing of a defamation complaint based on allegations made during a domestic violence case Justice Javed Iqbal Wani observed,

“… the application of Eighth Exception appended to Section 499 RPC involves determination of a question of fact which cannot be expected to be visualized by the trial court at the threshold stage of either taking cognizance of the offence or issuing process against the accused persons”.

The court added that if the complaint, along with the statements of the complainant and any witnesses provided at the time of filing, reveals that the imputation regarding the complainant causes harm to their reputation, the Magistrate is justified in taking cognizance of the matter and issuing process against the accused. It is only during the subsequent proceedings that the accused can demonstrate that the imputation was made in good faith, the bench underscored.

Background

The case originated from a domestic violence petition filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, by Rupali Sharma against her husband and in-laws. According to the complainant, she was subjected to mistreatment and continuous domestic violence at her matrimonial home in Vijaypur, Samba, after her marriage on February 28, 2017.

The petitioners, including her husband, denied the allegations and, in their response, levelled counter-accusations, questioning the complainant's character by alleging that she had illicit relations with some other person.

In response to these accusations, Rupali Sharma filed a separate complaint under Sections 499, 500, and 34 of the RPC, accusing the petitioners of defaming her and injuring her reputation. The Judicial Magistrate, Samba, took cognizance of the matter and summoned the accused petitioners.

The petitioners, aggrieved by the magistrate's decision, approached the High Court, invoking its inherent powers to quash the defamation proceedings.

The petitioners had contended that the accusations levelled in their response to the domestic violence petition did not amount to defamation, as the statements were made in good faith in the course of judicial proceedings. They argued that the Eighth Exception to Section 499 RPC, which provides immunity for accusations made in good faith to an authorized person, applied to their case, and therefore, the defamation complaint should be quashed at the threshold stage.

Court Observations:

Justice Wani, after hearing the arguments and reviewing the records noted that while Section 499 defines defamation, the exceptions appended to it, including the Eighth Exception, allow for certain defences, such as accusations made in good faith to a person authorized to deal with the matter.

However, the Court stressed that whether an accusation is made in good faith involves factual determinations that cannot be pre-judged by the trial court or the High Court at the stage of taking cognizance or issuing summons.

The Court explained that if the allegations in the complaint and the statements made by the complainant and her witness prima facie disclose that the imputation harmed the complainant's reputation, the trial court would be justified in taking cognizance of the offence and summoning the accused.

“The burden thus on the accused is not of the kind which is on the complainant to prove his or her case, but is only to be proved by Preponderance of Probabilities. Therefore, whether the imputations are made in good faith or not cannot be determined by the Magistrate as has been provided in the preceding Paras at the threshold”, the bench remarked.

Clarifying that it would be inappropriate for either the trial court or the High Court, in exercising its inherent powers, to decide this question at the threshold stage the court added,

"The question of whether the imputation falls under the Eighth Exception is a factual issue, and only the trial court can return a finding on this after evidence is brought on record,".

In support of this reasoning, the Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, which held that criminal proceedings should not be quashed in the initial stages, except in rare cases.

In light of these observations, the Court held that the petitioners' plea to quash the defamation proceedings was legally unsustainable at this stage. It thus dismissed the petition.

Case Title: Yashpal Sharma & Ors. Vs Rupali Sharma.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 253

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment