Code of Criminal Procedure 1973: s.482 – Quashing of complaint – In the instant case, a news item titled ‘Mission Misconduct’ was published in the news magazine INDIA TODAY stating that in a string of embarrassments for the foreign office, three Indian Officials posted in the Indian High Commission at UK had to be recalled in quick succession following serious allegations of sexual misconduct, corruption in issuance of visas and sale of Indian passports to illegal immigrants – Allegations were levelled against an officer of the Indian Foreign Service posted in UK for soliciting sexual favours from a local employee – The article further stated that said officer, now back in India, was facing disciplinary action and when contacted said official denied the charges – After the publication of the Article, memorandum dated 21.05.2007 was issued by the Ministry of External Affairs on the basis of the complaint of accused No.12 by which explanation was sought as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated against said officer “for sexual harassment of a woman at work place” – The said officer filed response and thereafter disciplinary authority ordered penalty – Order imposing penalty upheld by the Central Administrative Tribunal and also by High Court – In the meantime, complaint filed by said officer against various persons A-1 (Editor-in-Chief), A-2 (Author of the Article), and public servants A-3, A-4 and A-8 and other accused under various sections including ss.34, 120 B, 405, 468, 470, 471, 499, 501 and 502 of the IPC – Magistrate found sufficient material to proceed against accused 1, 2, 3, 4, 8 and 12 for the commission of offences punishable under ss.500, 502 read with s.120 B of the IPC – Petition filed under s.482 was dismissed by High Court – On appeal, held: There was nothing specific attributed to A-1 therefore, he cannot be held liable for the acts committed by the author of the article, namely, A-2 – With regard to the role ascribed to A-2 whether what he did was an act which was justified or not would be a question of fact to be gone into only at the stage of trial – Insofar as the public servants were concerned, they were not primarily responsible for the article and their responsibility, if at all, is only to the extent that they either reported something touching upon the complaint made by A-12 or in their capacity as public servants, reported something to their seniors, their actions are completely protected – Appeals insofar as A-1 and the public servants A-3, A-4 and A-8 are concerned is allowed and the summoning order is set aside and complaint lodged against them is quashed – The appeal preferred by A-2 is rejected. Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Though the presumption under Section 7 of Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 is available with regard to the Editor, even a Chief Editor can be proceeded against if the facts so justify. In a given case, if the facts so justify, the benefit of an exception to Section 499 of the IPC can be extended and it is not taken to be a rigid principle that the benefit of exception can only be afforded at the stage of trial. Considering the assertions and allegations made in the complaint, there nothing specific has been attributed to A-1, Editor-in-Chief. He cannot, therefore, be held liable for the acts committed by the author of the Article, namely, A-2. The allegations made in the complaint completely fall short of making out any case against A-1. [Paras 21, 22, 23][324-D-H]
2. With regard to the role ascribed to A-2, it must be stated at this stage that as an author of the Article his case stands on a different footing. Whether what he did was an act which was justified or not would be a question of fact to be gone into only at the stage of trial. [Para 24][325-A]
3. Insofar as the public servants are concerned, they are not primarily responsible for the Article and their responsibility, if at all, is only to the extent that they either reported something touching upon the complaint made by A-12 or in their capacity as public servants, reported something to their seniors. Going by the law laid down by this Court in Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande v Uttam, their actions are completely protected. [Para 25][325B-C]
6. In the circumstances, the appeals insofar as A-1 and the public servants A-3, A-4 and A-8 are concerned is allowed and the summoning order is set aside, as well as, Complaint No.584/1/2010 lodged against them is quashed. However, the appeal preferred by A-2 is rejected. [Para 26][326-C-D]
K.M. Mathew v. K.A. Abraham & Ors. (2002) 6 SCC
670 : [2002] 1 Suppl. SCR 662; Jawaharlal L Darda & Ors. v. Manoharrao Ganpatrao Kapsikar & Anr.
(1998) 4 SCC 112; Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande v. Uttam (1999) 3 SCC 134 : [1999] 1 SCR 580 - relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.