Defamation — Civil suit — Investigation Officer — Statements in charge-sheet / S.161 CrPC — Whether actionable
Civil suit for damages alleging defamation based on imputations relating to marital status made in final report — Allegation that Investigation Officer recorded and incorporated defamatory statement regarding personal life of complainant — Held, marital status and personal relationships of complainant not subject-matter of criminal case — Recording and publication of such imputations capable of constituting defamation — Suit not liable to be struck off at threshold.
[Paras 8–9]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — S.80 — Notice to public officer — Scope
Defendant contended suit barred for want of notice under S.80 CPC — Held, suit instituted against police officer in personal capacity for defamatory act — Action not relatable to discharge of official duty — S.80 notice not mandatory — Objection rejected.
[Para 10]
Criminal Procedure — S.161 CrPC statements — Use in civil defamation proceedings
Contention that statements recorded under S.161 CrPC cannot form basis of defamation suit — Rejected — If Investigation Officer incorporates personal and slanderous imputations unrelated to offence, civil consequences may follow — Filing of charge-sheet does not grant immunity for defamatory content.
[Paras 6, 9]
Supervisory jurisdiction — Art. 227, Constitution of India — Striking off plaint
Power to strike off plaint to be exercised sparingly — Where plaint discloses triable issues of defamation and personal injury to reputation, interference at threshold unwarranted — Revision petition dismissed.
[Paras 8–11]
Public servant — Abuse of power — Recording of personal imputations
Police officer has no authority to determine or comment upon marital status or personal relationships of complainant — Such conduct amounts to abuse of official position — Court justified in directing disciplinary action.
[Paras 9, 12]
Costs — Abuse of process
Revision petition found to be abuse of process — Exemplary costs imposed.
[Para 11]
ANALYSIS OF LAW AND FACTS
1. Nature of Proceedings
The Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution sought to strike off the plaint in a defamation suit instituted against a Sub-Inspector of Police, arising out of imputations made in a final report filed in a criminal case.
[Paras 1–3]
2. Basis of Defamation Alleged
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant-police officer, while filing the final report, incorporated statements suggesting that the plaintiff had separated from her husband and was living with another person. Such imputation, according to the plaint, was false, malicious, and unrelated to the criminal case, thereby tarnishing her reputation.
[Paras 4, 7]
3. Defence Raised in Revision
The revision petitioner contended that:
the suit was barred for want of notice under Section 80 CPC, and
statements in a charge-sheet based on Section 161 CrPC could not form the basis of a civil defamation action against the Investigation Officer.
[Paras 5–6]
4. Findings on Section 161 Statements
The Court held that although statements under Section 161 CrPC are recorded for criminal investigation, an Investigation Officer cannot incorporate personal and slanderous observations unrelated to the offence. If such imputations harm reputation, they are capable of giving rise to civil liability.
[Para 9]
5. Marital Status as Personal Liberty
The Court emphatically held that marital status, living arrangements, or personal relationships fall within the realm of personal liberty and dignity. Such aspects were irrelevant to the criminal case and could not be commented upon by the police officer.
[Paras 9, 12]
6. Section 80 CPC — Personal vs Official Capacity
Since the suit was directed against the defendant in his personal capacity for defamatory conduct, and not for acts done bona fide in discharge of official duty, the requirement of statutory notice under Section 80 CPC was held inapplicable.
[Para 10]
7. Refusal to Strike Off Plaint
The Court reiterated that striking off a plaint is an exceptional remedy. As the plaint disclosed clear allegations of defamation and injury to reputation requiring adjudication, interference under Article 227 was declined.
[Paras 8–11]
8. Consequential Directions
Finding abuse of power and vindictive conduct, the Court:
dismissed the revision petition,
imposed exemplary costs, and
directed the Superintendent of Police to suspend the petitioner and initiate disciplinary proceedings.
[Paras 11–12]
9. Ratio Decidendi
Incorporation of personal and defamatory imputations by a police officer in a charge-sheet, unrelated to the offence under investigation, can give rise to a maintainable civil defamation action; such conduct is not protected as official duty and does not attract Section 80 CPC protection.
[Paras 9–10, 12]
No comments:
Post a Comment