38.6c New Delhi, India, Thursday, March 28, 2024
Judiciary

Complaint Against Defamation of Deceased Person Can Be Filed Either by 'Family Members' or 'Near Relatives': Punjab & Haryana High Court [READ ORDER]

By Dev Kumar Patel      08 December, 2020 03:38 PM      0 Comments
Complaint Against Defamation of Deceased Person Can Be Filed Either by 'Family Members' or 'Near Relatives': Punjab & Haryana High Court [READ ORDER]

The Punjab and Haryana High Court while allowing the petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, quashed the Complaint under Sections 499, 500 and 501 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and all the arising proceedings. 

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that the person aggrieved by a defamatory statement must have an element of ‘personal interest’. He should either be the person defamed or family member or near relative in case of a deceased person.

The bench noted that Section 320 Cr. P. C., 1973 permits compounding of the offence of defamation but it is only the person who is defamed who can agree to the same.

Justice Kumar took reference of Division Bench judgment of the Patna High Court in  'Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh V/s. The State of Bihar and another' [1986 SCC Online Patna 174, wherein it was held that generally, the person aggrieved was only the person defamed. An exception had been made in case of a deceased person, but the persons aggrieved in such a case were limited to his family members and near relatives, whose feelings would be hurt by the defamatory statement and none else.

The Complainant Contended before the learned Magistrate that he fell within the definition of a 'person aggrieved' as his family was closely 'related'. Wherein the bench observed that this claim seems to have been based more on ‘ideological considerations’ rather than any actual 'relationship’. 

Referring to the law on the issue, Justice Sanjay Kumar asserted that a sub-section of Section 199 of the Cr.P.C.,1973, dealing with prosecution for defamation, made it clear that no court should take cognizance of an offence punishable under provisions of the Indian Penal Code except upon a complaint made by a person aggrieved by the offence. “This provision, therefore, mandates that the complaint be made by a person aggrieved,” Justice Kumar asserted.

Justice Kumar observed that the Division Bench, in its order, relied upon Supreme Court Judgment 'G. Narasimhan and others V/s. T.V. Chokkappa' [AIR 1972 SC 2609], wherein it was held that an exception was created to the general rule that a complaint could be filed by anybody, whether he is aggrieved or not, as Section 198 of the old Code of 1898 (presently, Section 199 Cr.P.C,1973) modified that general rule by permitting only an 'aggrieved person' to move the Magistrate in cases pertaining to defamation. The Supreme Court observed that compliance with this Section was mandatory and if a Magistrate took cognizance of the offence of defamation on a complaint made by one who was not an 'aggrieved person', the trial and conviction in such a case would be void and illegal

In his detailed order, Justice Kumar stated that Section 320 of the Cr.P.C.,1973 permitted the compounding of the offence of defamation, but only the person defamed could agree to the same. Pointing at “explanation 1 to Section 499 of the IPC” on the issue, Justice Kumar added that the section made it clear that only the family members or near relatives of the deceased person, against whom imputations had been made, could claim to be persons aggrieved.

Justice Kumar noted in the order that “the complaint was deficient and tainted in its very inception and was, therefore, not maintainable.”

 

 

[READ ORDER]



Share this article:



Leave a feedback about this
TRENDING NEWS

afspa-centre-planning-to-pull-back-troops-from-jammu-and-kashmir
Trending News Updates
AFSPA: Centre planning to pull back troops from Jammu and Kashmir?

Central government will consider revoking the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act in Jammu and Kashmir. Here's what Union Home Minister Amit Shah said on the matter.

27 March, 2024 06:51 PM
sc-declines-to-reconsider-judgement-holding-conspiracy-to-be-scheduled-offence-under-pmla-only-if-offence-specifically-mentioned
Trending Judiciary
SC declines to reconsider judgement holding conspiracy to be scheduled offence under PMLA only if offence specifically mentioned [Read Order]

Supreme Court declines review, confirms conspiracy must relate to a scheduled offence under PMLA, dismissing appeal on money laundering charges.

27 March, 2024 07:40 PM

TOP STORIES

global-entertainment-giants-warner-bros-netflix-amazon-get-relief-from-delhi-hc-in-copyright-protection-case
Trending Business
Global entertainment giants Warner Bros, Netflix, Amazon get relief from Delhi HC in copyright protection case

Delhi HC grants relief to global entertainment giants like Netflix, Amazon, Warner Bros, ordering takedown of copyrighted content on rogue websites.

22 March, 2024 12:13 PM
arvind-kejriwal-arrested-can-cm-administer-a-region-while-being-in-jail
Trending Top Stories
Arvind Kejriwal Arrested | Can CM administer a region while being in jail?

Will President's rule be imposed in Delhi after Kejriwal’s arrest? Read the full article to know more.

22 March, 2024 03:16 PM
merely-because-you-are-politician-cant-bypass-statutory-remedies-procedure-sc-refuses-to-consider-bail-by-kavitha
Trending Judiciary
'Merely because you are politician, can't bypass statutory remedies, procedure,' SC refuses to consider bail by Kavitha

Supreme Court denies bail to politician Kavitha in Delhi Liquor Policy Scam; ED alleges Rs 100 crore illegal gratification.

22 March, 2024 03:34 PM
ponmudi-to-be-sworn-in-as-minister-tn-governor-relents-before-sc
Trending Judiciary
Ponmudi to be sworn in as Minister, TN Governor relents before SC

Tamil Nadu Governor relents to Supreme Court's order, agrees to swear in DMK leader K Ponmudi as Minister after court's rap.

22 March, 2024 03:54 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email