Defamation case against the owner of a daily news paper regarding an article was published against the respondent
2) The instant appeal has been preferred by the accused appellant who is facing prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 500 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 in a complaint filed by the respondent-complainant Anand Dubey in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hoshangabad. The complaint was founded on an allegation that the appellant who is the registered owner of a Daily newspaper named ‘Sunday Blast’ having its registered office at Malviya Hospital, Kothi Bazar, Hoshangabad Tehsil and District Hoshangabad, allowed a news article to be published in the edition dated 24th February, 2013 bearing a title “Advocate ne pan masala vyavasayi par karaya jhuta mamla darj”.
3) The respondent-complainant filed the subject complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hoshangabad alleging that the appellant had allowed the said news article to be published in his newspaper without ascertaining the true facts and that such publication brought down the reputation of the respondent-complainant in the eyes of the public at large and thus, the accused appellant was liable to be prosecuted for criminal defamation punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Magistrate dismissed the complaint
4) The learned Magistrate, after considering the averments made in the complaint and the statement of witnesses examined under Sections 200 and 202 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(hereinafter being referred to as ‘CrPC’) rejected the same vide order dated 12th June, 2017.
No appearance for the complainant
6) No one has appeared to contest the appeal on behalf of the respondent-complainant despite service.
Article was published was in good faith and in exercise of fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression
8) Having considered the entirety of the material available on record, we find that the order dated 12th June, 2017 passed by the learned Magistrate First Class, Hoshangabad rejecting the complaint of the respondent-complainant is a well-reasoned order. The learned Magistrate in its order referred to the Fundamental Right of Freedom of Speech and Expression enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and held that the publication in question did not warrant prosecution of the accused appellant for the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. We are also of the view that the news article in question was published in good faith and in exercise of the Fundamental Right of Freedom of Speech and Expression enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
11) As a consequence, all proceedings sought to be taken against the accused appellant in pursuance of the complaint filed by the respondent-complainant under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 are also quashed.
Party
SANJAY UPADHYA ….APPELLANT(S) VERSUS ANAND DUBEY ….RESPONDENT(S) – CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 486 OF 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 3180 of 2020) – January 29, 2024 – 2024 INSC 66
Sanjay Upadhya vs. Anand Dubey – 144802020_2024-01-29
Further study
https://demonew.section1.in/defamation-case-the-statements-is-defamatory-inasmuch-they-are-directly-connected-with-the-discharge-of-public-functions-of-the-office-of-the-honble-tamilnadu-chief-minister/
