Bomb

ay H

igh C

ourt

wp_4960_2014.doc

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREATBOMBAYCRIMINALAPPELLATEJURISDICTION

CRIMINALWRITPETITIONNO.4960OF2014

Mr.RahulGandhi,M.P.Vice President, Indian NationalCongress, residing at 12, TuglakLane,NewDelhi110011 ...Petitioner

Versus

1.RajeshMahadevKunteBusiness man residing atKanchangauri, Kasaral Bhiwandi,ThaneDist.

2.StateofMaharashtraGovernment Pleader officeCriminal Appellate Side HighCourtBombay ...Respondents

Mr. R.S. Cheema, Sr. counsel a/w Mr. Prasad Dhakepalkar,Sr. Advocate, Mr. K.C. Mittal and Ms Tarannum Cheema i/bMr. Manmohan Rao and Ms Deepa Kamath for Petitioner.Mr. V.S. Kokaje, senior counsel i/b Ms Anuradha A. Garge a/wMr. Vinayak Dixit, and Mr. R.S. Apte, senior counsel forRespondent No.1.Mr. S.K. Shinde, P.P. a/w Mr. V.B.K. Deshmukh, APP,for the Respondent No.2-State.

CORAM:M.L.TAHALIYANI,J.

DATEONWHICHTHEJUDGMENTISRESERVED:9thMarch,2015.

DATEONWHICHTHEJUDGMENTISPRONOUNCED:10thMarch,2015.

Megha 1 of 16

::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2015 14:29:31 :::

Bomb

ay H

igh C

ourt

wp_4960_2014.doc

JUDGMENT:

Admitted. Byconsentofthepartiestakenupforthwithfor

finalhearing.

2. ThePetitionerismemberofParliamentandisvicepresident

of Indian National Congress (I.N.C.). He is aggrieved by the order

passed by the 3rd Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhiwandi in

OMA/353/2014dated1172014summoningthePetitionertoappear

beforehimandtoanswerthechargefortheoffencepunishableunder

section500oftheIPC. Theprocesshasbeenissuedonthecomplaint

filed by Respondent No.1. The Respondent No.1 is a resident of

Bhiwandi (DistrictThane) and claims to be a member of Rashtriya

SwayamsevakSangh(R.S.S.)sincechildhood.Atpresentheisworkingas

Karyawah (Secretary) of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, Bhiwandi

Taluka.

3. HehasallegedthattherewasarallyofI.N.C.on632014at

village Sonale near Bhiwandi for parliament election campaign. The

rallywasaddressedbythePetitioner. ItisallegedthatthePetitioner

duringthecourseofaddresstothepublicandmediahadallegedthat

Megha 2 of 16

::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2015 14:29:31 :::

Bomb

ay H

igh C

ourt

wp_4960_2014.doc

themembersbelongingtoR.S.S.hadkilledGandhiji.Englishtranslation

ofallegedoffendingportioncanbereproducedasunder:

WegavethetelephonetoIndia,Thisistheirstyle.

Gandhijiwaskilledbythem;personsfromtheR.S.S.

Shot Gandhiji. And today their people talk of

Gandhiji.SardarPatel:SardarPatelJiwasaleader

oftheCongressParty. Hewaswrittenverylucidly

abouttheR.S.S.; hehaswrittenveryclearlyabout

theirorganisation.

4. Themainoffendingportionof theaddress was, Gandhiji

waskilledbythem;personsfromR.S.S.ShotGandhiji. Respondent

No.1 in his complaint has alleged that by making such a statement

againstR.S.S., thePetitionerhascommittedoffenceofdefamationas

definedundersection499andpunishableundersection500oftheIPC.

ItisallegedthatintentionwastoharmthereputationofR.S.S.andits

members.

5. On receipt of complaint the learned Magistrate took

statementofRespondentNo.1onoathandsentthecomplainttopolice

forenquiryundersection202ofCr.P.C.Afterreceiptofenquiryreport,a

summonsasstatedabovehasbeenissuedagainstthePetitioner.

Megha 3 of 16

::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2015 14:29:31 :::

Bomb

ay H

igh C

ourt

wp_4960_2014.doc

6. Theargumentsof learnedseniorcounsel Mr. Cheemaand

learnedseniorCounselMr.KokajeonbehalfofthePetitionerandthe

Respondent No.1 respectively, were heard. At the outset it may be

mentioned here that Petitioner does not deny to have made the

statementallegedagainsthimbytheRespondentNo.1. Itisadmitted

positionthatarallywasheldatvillageSonaleanditisfurtheradmitted

position that the statement with regard to R.S.S. was made by the

Petitionerduringthecourseofhisaddress. It isnotdeniedthatthe

portionsofaddressofthePetitionerwerepublishedinelectronicaswell

asprintmedia.

7. Sincethefactualpositionwithregardtomakingofthestatement

andpublicationthereofisadmitted,theprimequestionwhichneedsto

beexaminedisastowhetherthePetitionerintendedtoharmorknew

thathewouldbeharmingorhadreasontobelievethatthestatement

madebyhimwouldharmthereputationofR.S.S.andconsequentlyits

membersincludingRespondentNo.1.

Megha 4 of 16

::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2015 14:29:31 :::

Bomb

ay H

igh C

ourt

wp_4960_2014.doc

8. ThereisnodisputethatR.S.S.isadeterminatebodyandit

willfallundertheExplanation2ofsection499oftheIPC. Therefore,

anyoffendedmemberofR.S.S.issaidtobeaggrievedpersonandcan

fileacomplaint,againstapersonwhointendstoharmthereputationof

R.S.S.

9. Asalreadystatedwhatisrequiredtobeconsideredisasto

whethertherewasrequisiteintentionorknowledgeonthepartofthe

Petitionerorwhetherhehadreasontobelievethathewouldbeharming

reputationofR.S.S.bymakingtheallegedstatement.Duringthecourse

ofargumentslearnedseniorcounselforthePetitionersubmittedthatthe

factsofthecaseandthebackgroundinwhichthestatementwasmade

bythePetitionerneedtobeconsidered. LearnedseniorcounselMr.

CheemahassubmittedthatthePetitionerwasaddressingthemembers

ofrallyonthepointofphilosophyofCongressandthestatementmade

bythePetitionershallbereadinthatcontext.Itwasfurthersubmitted

thatthestatementmadebythePetitionerwasplainstatementandthat

the Petitioner did not intend to harm the reputation of R.S.S. The

reference to the killers of Gandhiji had come in the speech of the

PetitioneronlybecausethePetitionerfeltthatnamesofGandhijiand

SardarVallabhbhaiPatelwereappropriatedorusurpedbyB.J.P.though

Megha 5 of 16

::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2015 14:29:31 :::

Bomb

ay H

igh C

ourt

wp_4960_2014.doc

boththeleadersoriginallybelongedtoCongress. Thestatementwas

madebythePetitioner inthatcontextandnotwithaviewtoharm

reputationof R.S.S. It wassubmittedby learnedseniorcounsel Mr.

Cheemathatitisamatterofhistoryandtheissueregardingkillingof

Gandhijiisapublicquestionanditisinapublicdomain.Therefore,if

anystatementismadebythePetitionerinrespectofaquestionwithin

thepublicdomainit wouldnotamounttodefamationandwouldbe

coveredbyThirdExceptionofsection499oftheIPC.

10. MyattentionwasinvitedtotheGovernmentResolutionby

whichR.S.S.wasbannedon421948.Myattentionwasalsoinvitedto

theletterswrittenbySardarVallabhbhaiPatelandDr.ShyamaPrasad

MukherjeetothethenR.S.S.Chief.Asfarasquestionofmaintainability

ofthePetitionundersection482ofCr.P.C.isconcerned,learnedsenior

counselMr.Cheemahassubmittedthatallegedoffendingstatementisto

be read alongwith the preceding andsucceeding portion of the said

statement.Itwillbeclearthatintentionwasnottoharmthereputation

ofR.S.S.Itissubmittedthatifthiscanbeconcludedatthisstage,why

thePetitionershall berelegatedtotheTrial Courttogothroughthe

ordealoftrial.

Megha 6 of 16

::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2015 14:29:31 :::

Bomb

ay H

igh C

ourt

wp_4960_2014.doc

11. LearnedseniorcounselMr.Kokajeappearingonbehalfofthe

RespondentNo.1hassubmittedthatifthePetitionerclaimsthathiscase

wascoveredbyanyoftheexception,hehastoestablishthatbeforethe

TrialCourtandnotduringthecourseofhearingundersection482of

Cr.P.C.Itiscontendedbyhimthatastowhetherstatementwasmadein

goodfaithandwhetheritamountedtoopinionregardingtheconductof

R.S.S.withrespecttoapublicquestionwillhavetobedecidedbythe

TrialCourtandnotbythisCourt.

12. LearnedseniorcounselMr.Cheemahasplacedrelianceon

thejudgmentofHonbleSupremeCourtreportedat(1977)2Supreme

CourtCases699. Myattentionwasinvitedtoportionofpara7ofthe

judgment,whichreadsasunder:

Intheexerciseofthiswholesomepower,theHighCourtis

entitledtoquashaproceedingifitcomestotheconclusion

thatallowingtheproceedingtocontinuewouldbeanabuse

oftheprocessoftheCourtorthattheendsofjusticerequire

thattheproceedingoughttobequashed.Thesavingofthe

High Courts inherent powers, both in civil and criminal

matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose

whichisthatacourtproceedingoughtnottobepermittedto

degenerateintoaweaponofharassmentorpersecution.Ina

Megha 7 of 16

::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2015 14:29:31 :::

Bomb

ay H

igh C

ourt

wp_4960_2014.doc

criminalcase,theveiledobjectbehindalameprosecution,

theverynatureofthematerialonwhichthestructureofthe

prosecutionrestsandthelikewouldjustifytheHighCourtin

quashingtheproceedingintheinterestofjustice.Theends

ofjusticearehigherthantheendsofmerelawthoughjustice

hasgottobeadministeredaccordingtolawsmadebythe

legislature. The compelling necessity for making these

observationsisthatwithoutaproperrealizationoftheobject

and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the

inherentpowersoftheHighCourttodojusticebetweenthe

Stateanditssubjects,itwouldbeimpossibletoappreciate

thewidthandcontoursofthatsalientjurisdiction.

13. LearnedseniorcounselMr.Kokaje, appearingonbehalfof

theRespondentNo.1hasplacedrelianceonlatestjudgmentofSupreme

CourtinthematterofP.S.MeherhomjiV/s.K.T.VijayKumarandOrs.

reported at (2015) 1 Supreme Court Cases 788. The Honble

SupremeCourt after havingconsidered thevarious judgments of the

SupremeCourthascometothefollowingconclusion:

13.Indisputably,judicialprocessshouldnotbeaninstrument

of oppressionor needless harassment. Thecourt shouldbe

circumspectandjudiciousinexercisingdiscretionandshould

takealltherelevantfactsandcircumstancesintoconsideration

before issuingprocess lest it wouldbeaninstrumentinthe

Megha 8 of 16

::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2015 14:29:31 :::

Bomb

ay H

igh C

ourt

wp_4960_2014.doc

handsofprivatecomplainantasvendettatoharassthepersons

needlessly.

14.Itisequallywellsettledthatsummoningofanaccusedin

a criminal case is a serious matter and the order taking

cognizance by the Magistrate summoning the accused must

reflectthathehasappliedhismindtothefactsofthecaseand

thelawapplicablethereto. Section482ofCodeofCriminal

Procedure empowers the Highcourt to exercise its inherent

powerstopreventabuseoftheprocessofcourtandtoquash

the proceeding instituted on the complaint but such power

couldbeexercisedonlyincaseswherethecomplaintdoesnot

disclose any offence or is vexatious or oppressive. If the

allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the

offenceof whichcognizance is takenbytheMagistrate it is

opentotheHighCourttoquashthesameinexerciseofpower

underSection482.

15.SofarasthecomplaintallegingtheoffenceunderSection

499IPCisconcerned,ifonconsiderationoftheallegationsthe

complaintissupportedbyastatementofthecomplainanton

oathandthenecessaryingredientsoftheoffencearedisclosed,

theHighCourtshouldnotnormallyinterferewiththeorder

takingcognizance.

14. In my view the recent judgment of the Honble Supreme

CourtsummarisestheviewoftheHonbleSupremeCourtontheissueof

exercise of inherent powers of the High Court. After having gone

Megha 9 of 16

::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2015 14:29:31 :::

Bomb

ay H

igh C

ourt

wp_4960_2014.doc

throughthejudgmentcitedbythelearnedseniorcounsel,Ihavecome

totheconclusionthatinnormalcourse,ifthecomplaintmakesouta

primafaciecase,HighCourtwouldnotinterfereinexerciseofitspowers

undersection482ofCr.P.C.However,nostraitjacketformulacanbelaid

downforthesameanditmaydifferfromcasetocaseonthebasisof

factsandcircumstances.Itispossiblethatinaparticularcaseitmaybe

apparentonthefaceofrecorditselfthattheprosecutionshouldnotbe

continued and in that event High Court might give relief to the

aggrievedpersonbyresortingtosection482of Cr.P.C. Someof the

categorieswheretheinherentpowerscouldbeexercisedbytheHigh

Court have been cataloged in para 21 of the judgment of Honble

Supreme Court reported at AIR1960 SC866 as in the matter of

JeffreyJ.DiermeierV/s.StateofWestBengal,onwhichreliancehas

beenplacedbyboththeseniorcounsel. Para21ofthesaidjudgment

canbereproducedasunder:

21. In one of the earlier cases, in R.P. Kapur v. State of

Punjab this Court had summarised some of the categories of

cases where the inherent power under Section 482 of the

Code could be exercised by the High Court to quash criminal

proceedings against the accused. These are:

(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar

against the institution or continuance of the proceedings e.g.

Megha 10 of 16

::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2015 14:29:31 :::

Bomb

ay H

igh C

ourt

wp_4960_2014.doc

want of sanction;

(ii) where the allegations in the first information report or

the complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their

entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;

(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is

no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly

or manifestly fails to prove the charge.

15. Assuchitisabundantlyclearthatifthecaseismadeoutto

demonstratethattheprocessofCourthasbeenabusedorinterestof

justicedemand,thentheCourtmayquashtheproceedinginexerciseof

itspowersundersection482ofCr.P.C.

16. Inthepresentcaseasalreadystated,thelearnedcounselfor

thePetitionerhasinvitedmyattentiontotheorderbanningR.S.S.and

contentsoflettersaddressedtothethenR.S.S.Chief,ShriGolwalkarby

ShriSardarVallabhbhaiPatelandDr.ShyamaPrasadMukherjee.Inthis

regard I would not comment much in detail on the contents of the

banningorderandthelettersas,ifultimatelythisCourtdismissesthe

presentpetition,letterswillhavetobeprovedinaccordancewithlaw.

Contentsofthelettersandthebanningorderswillhavetobeprovedin

accordancewithlawbeforetheTrialCourt. Sufficeittosaythatboth

Megha 11 of 16

::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2015 14:29:31 :::

Bomb

ay H

igh C

ourt

wp_4960_2014.doc

thelettersandthebanningorderdidnotdirectlystatethattheassassins

ofGandhijiweremembersofR.S.S.Myattentionwasalsoinvitedtothe

statement made by the accused, who was part of the conspiracy to

assassinateMahatmaji. Statementsarestatedtobemadebeforethe

Trial Court duringthecourseof trial of theassassins. What canbe

statedinthisregardalso is that thesamewill havetobeproved in

accordancewithlawbeforetheTrialCourt. Thenextissuewhichmay

arisebeforetheTrialCourtisastowhatistheeffectofthosestatements.

TheissuewhichmayneedconsiderationbeforetheTrialCourtisasto

whetherR.S.S.hadownedthattheassassinsweremembersofR.S.S.

ThecomplaintclearlystatesthatR.S.S.didnotownthemandthatthe

allegedoffendingstatementmadebythePetitionerwasfalsewithinhis

knowledge.

17. LearnedseniorcounselMr.Cheemainvitedmyattentionto

thejudgmentofPunjabandHaryanaHighCourtinthematterofAroon

Purie&Ors.V/s.StateofHaryana&Anrwhereanarticlepublishedin

IndiaTodayissueofAugust18,2003hadcomeupforconsideration.

Therelevantportionofthesaidarticlecanbereproducedasunder:

1948Oneofthegreatestideasofthe20th centurywas

Megha 12 of 16

::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2015 14:29:31 :::

Bomb

ay H

igh C

ourt

wp_4960_2014.doc

killed at 5.03 p.m. on January 30, 1948. Mohandas

KaramchandGandhi,themanwholedIndiatofreedom

byredefiningtheveryconceptofprotest,steppedoutof

theBirlaHouseinDelhiandwalkedtowardsthegarden

toholdaprayermeeting. Amongthe300peoplewho

greetedhimthateveningwas NathuramGodse,anRSS

worker, who fired three shots at close range from his

automatic 9 mm Beretta into the fragile chest of the

Mahatma.(Emphasissupplied)

18. Learned single Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court

whiledealingwiththehistoricalbackgroundhadpointedoutinpara32

ofthesaidjudgmentasunder:

32.Inthebackdropoftheabove,ifthepublicationisseen

andespeciallyinthecontextthatthereisaragingdebate

attributedtothehistorians,whohavetriedtotracethepug

marksofsuchhistoricalcharacters,anyimputationwhichis

madepresumablyonthebasisofthematerial whichifnot

evenentirely true is near to the truth and inference as

truthful as the truth itself; cannot be termed to be

defamatory. Thedoctrineoffaircommentencompasses

thatifapublicationwhichbroadlyspeakingtrueinfactand

notmadetosatisfyanypersonalagendaorvendettawould

seeminglybeprotected.(Emphasissupplied)

Megha 13 of 16

::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2015 14:29:31 :::

Bomb

ay H

igh C

ourt

wp_4960_2014.doc

19. PlacingrelianceonthisjudgmentlearnedseniorcounselMr.

CheemahassubmittedthatCourtmaytakebroadviewofthematter

and may consider that broadly speaking it is a fact that assassins,

particularly NathuramGodse, weremembersof R.S.S. and therefore,

Petitionerhasnotcommittedanyoffence.Therewasnoulteriormotive

andtherefore,itcannotbesaidthathehadintentiontoharmreputation

ofR.S.S.WithgreatrespecttothelearnedsingleJudgeImaynotagree

withthesaidobservations. Inmyopinionunlessitisestablishedthat

statementwasmadeingoodfaith,offencedefinedundersection499

andpunishableundersection500oftheIPCwouldbemadeout. The

FirstExceptiontosection499runsasunder:

FirstExceptionImputationoftruthwhichpublicgood

requirestobemadeorpublished.Itisnotdefamation

toimputeanythingwhichistrueconcerninganyperson,if

it beforthepublicgoodthattheimputationshouldbe

madeorpublished. Whetherornotit is forthepublic

goodisaquestionoffact.

TheNinthExceptiontothesaidsectionrunsasunder:

NinthException Imputationmadeingoodfaithby

personforprotectionofhisorothersinterests.Itis

notdefamationtomakeanimputationonthecharacter

of another provided that the imputation be made in

good faith for the protection of the interests of the

Megha 14 of 16

::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2015 14:29:31 :::

Bomb

ay H

igh C

ourt

wp_4960_2014.doc

personmaking it, or of anyother persons, or for the

publicgood.

20. Admittedly,thePetitionerwasaddressingapublicrallyfor

campaigninginfavouroftheI.N.C.IfthestatementmadeagainstR.S.S.

was made in the said public rally, particularly when R.S.S. is not a

politicalpartyandwasnotcontestinganyelectionfromanywherein

India,thestatementprimafaciewouldindicatethatitwasintendedto

harmreputationofR.S.S.orthePetitioneratleastkneworhadreason

to believe that he would be harming reputation of R.S.S. If the

Petitioneriscoveredbyanyoftheexceptionsincludingthirdandninthit

is for himtoprovethesamebefore theTrial Court. This is not an

exceptionalcasewherethisCourtshallexercisepowersundersection

482of Cr.P.C. for quashingtheproceedingsagainst thePetitioner. As

alreadyindicated,powersofsection482ofCr.P.C.arerequiredtobe

exercisedsparingly.TheHighCourt,innormalcourse,willnotdisturb

theorderofissuanceofprocessiftheavermentsmadeinthecomplaint

andtheenquirymadebytheMagistrateorthepoliceprimafaciemakes

outacaseforissuanceofprocess.

Megha 15 of 16

::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2015 14:29:31 :::

Bomb

ay H

igh C

ourt

wp_4960_2014.doc

21. In my considered opinion there is no substance in the

petition.Petitiontherefore,deservestobedismissed.

22. Thepetitionisaccordinglydismissed. Interimrelief,ifany,

standsvacated.ThelearnedTrialJudgeshallnotgetinfluencedbyany

oftheobservationsmadebythisCourt.

(JUDGE)

Megha 16 of 16

::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2015 14:29:31 :::