Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 499, 500 r/w S.34 — Defamation — Ninth Exception to S.499 — Scope and application — Qualified privilege — When attracted
Complaint alleging erection of banners by flat purchasers protesting against builder — Banners listing grievances relating to non-formation of society, defects, amenities, accounts and maintenance — Language employed temperate, non-abusive, non-intemperate — Protest peaceful and orderly — Held, imputations, if any, made in good faith for protection of appellants’ legitimate interests and interests of other homeowners — Case falls within sweep, scope and ambit of Ninth Exception to S.499 — No offence of defamation made out — Continuation of criminal proceedings amounts to abuse of process — Complaint and summoning order quashed.
[Paras 16–17, 22, 24, 30, 35]
Penal Code, 1860 — S.499 — Ingredients — Intention or knowledge to harm reputation — Absence thereof
Mere airing of grievances arising out of business relationship between builder and homebuyers — No allegations of fraud, cheating, misappropriation or moral turpitude — Imputations do not lower moral or intellectual character nor professional reputation — Intention to harm reputation not established on face of complaint.
[Paras 16, 21–22]
Penal Code, 1860 — S.499, Ninth Exception — Good faith — Test
Good faith to be assessed on nature of imputation, circumstances, relationship between parties, choice of words, absence of malice, and protection of legitimate interest — Truth not required to be proved for Ninth Exception, unlike First Exception — Careful choice of restrained language indicative of good faith.
[Paras 17–20, 22, 24]
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Ss. 200, 204, 482 — Power to consider exceptions to S.499 at threshold
Magistrate not precluded from examining applicability of exceptions to S.499 at stage of issuance of process — If complaint itself discloses complete defence under an exception, complaint liable to be dismissed — High Court equally empowered to quash proceedings if continuation amounts to abuse of process.
[Paras 13–14]
Constitution of India — Arts. 19(1)(a), (b), (c) & 19(2) — Freedom of speech and expression — Peaceful protest — Dissent
Right of flat purchasers to protest peacefully by banners/pamphleteering — Such protest protected under Arts. 19(1)(a), (b) and (c), subject to reasonable restrictions — Temperate dissent and airing of grievances not criminal defamation — Criminal law cannot be used to create chilling effect on free speech.
[Paras 27–30, 34]
Abuse of process — Criminal defamation proceedings
Giving civil disputes criminal colour — Defamation complaint used as pressure tactic — Proceedings liable to be quashed to prevent abuse of process of court.
[Paras 30, 34–35]
ANALYSIS OF LAW AND FACTS
1. Core Issue Before the Court
The precise question framed was whether the complaint filed by the developer disclosed the commission of offences punishable under Section 500 read with Section 34 IPC against the appellants-homebuyers.
[Para 4]
2. Factual Matrix as Emanating from the Complaint
The appellants, being flat purchasers, erected banners visible to the public enumerating grievances relating to formation of society, maintenance, defects, accounts, water supply, lifts and approach road. The developer alleged that such banners were erected with deliberate intention to defame and lower its reputation in the eyes of the public.
[Paras 2, 5]
3. Relationship Between Parties — Relevance
The Court placed decisive emphasis on the admitted business relationship between the parties, namely builder and homebuyers, with reciprocal contractual obligations. In such a relationship, airing of grievances regarding performance of obligations is not per se defamatory.
[Para 15]
4. Language as Determinative Factor
A central doctrinal contribution of the judgment is the reiteration that choice of words is a decisive test in defamation cases invoking qualified privilege. The banners contained no foul, abusive or intemperate language and did not accuse the developer of fraud, cheating or dishonesty.
[Paras 16, 22, 24]
5. Application of Ninth Exception to Section 499 IPC
The Court held that:
Truth is not an essential ingredient under the Ninth Exception.
What is required is good faith and protection of legitimate interest.
Peaceful articulation of grievances by homeowners, using restrained language, squarely attracts the protection of the Ninth Exception.
Accordingly, even assuming imputations, they stood immunised by statutory exception.
[Paras 17–20, 22, 30]
6. Stage of Consideration of Exceptions
Relying on recent precedent, the Court clarified that exceptions to Section 499 can be examined even at the stage of issuance of summons and at the quashing stage, if the complaint itself discloses a complete defence. The High Court’s failure to apply this settled principle was held to be erroneous.
[Paras 13–14]
7. Constitutional Overlay — Free Speech and Peaceful Protest
The Court harmonised criminal defamation law with Articles 19(1)(a), (b) and (c), holding that peaceful protest, pamphleteering and banners expressing dissent are constitutionally protected, so long as they remain within reasonable limits and do not employ abusive or malicious language.
[Paras 27–30, 34]
8. Abuse of Process
The criminal complaint was found to be an attempt to criminalise a civil dispute and silence legitimate dissent. Continuation of proceedings would result in abuse of the criminal process and chilling of free speech.
[Paras 30, 34–35]
9. Final Holding
The appeal was allowed; the High Court judgment set aside; the criminal complaint and summoning order quashed.
[Para 35]
No comments:
Post a Comment