Criminal Jurisprudence
It is a fundamental rule of criminal jurisprudence that if the allegations contained in the complaint, even if taken to be true, do not constitute the offence complained, the person accused should not be allowed to undergo the ordeal of a trial.
[Para 58]
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Sections 199(2) & 199(4)—Prosecution for defamation—Order of summoning—Challenged on ground that a person covered by sub-section (2) cannot bypass the special procedure prescribed in sub-section (4) of Section 199 of CrPC—Long history of evolution of the legislation relating to prosecution for offence of defamation of public servants shows that the special procedure introduced in 1955 and fine-tuned in 1964 and overhauled in 1973 was in addition to and not in derogation of the right that a public servant always had as an individual—He never lost his right merely because he became a public servant and merely because the allegations related to official discharge of his duties—Ground is liable to be rejected—A person falling under the category of persons mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 199 can either take the route specified in sub-section (4) or take the route specified in sub-section (6) of Section 199 of CrPC—Appeal dismissed.
[Paras 41, 51 & 56]
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 499—Defamation—Essential ingredient of Section 499 IPC is that the imputation made by the accused should have the potential to harm the reputation of the person against whom the imputation is made.
[Para 60]
Section 500—Defamation—Order of summoning—Whether tweets attributed to fifth accused can be said to be per se defamatory—Twenty four questions posed by fifth accused to first respondent cannot be said to be defamatory as these questions seek answers to certain facts relating to the construction of some buildings—Defamatory statement should be specific and not very vogue and general—Statement made by fifth accused to the effect “your answer will disclose your scam” cannot be considered to be an imputation intending to harm or knowing or having reason to believe that it will harm the reputation of first respondent—There was no application of mind on the part of the ACMM—Appeal of fifth accused liable to be succeed on the sole ground that the statements contained in his tweets cannot be said to be defamatory within the meaning of Section 499 of the IPC—Order of summoning qua fifth accused is set aside—Appeal allowed.
[Paras 58 to 63]