Full Judgment Text
Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No(s). 3180 of 2020
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 3180 of 2020)
SANJAY UPADHYA ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
ANAND DUBEY ….RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Mehta, J.
1. Leave granted.
2024 INSC 66
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Narendra Prasad
Date: 2024.01.29
18:29:37 IST
Reason:
founded on an allegation that the appellant who is the registered
1
Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No(s). 3180 of 2020
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
th
published in the edition dated 24 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.
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
th
order dated 12 June, 2017.
5. The respondent-complainant preferred a revision against the
th
order dated 12 June, 2017, which came to be allowed by the
2
Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No(s). 3180 of 2020
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad vide order dated
th
15 October, 2018 and the order passed by the learned Magistrate
was reversed. The accused appellant herein challenged the said
order by filing MCRC No. 44473 of 2018 before the High Court of
th
Madhya Pradesh which dismissed the same vide order dated 29
th
January, 2020. The order dated 29 January, 2020 and all further
proceedings of the complaint are assailed in the present appeal.
6. No one has appeared to contest the appeal on behalf of the
respondent-complainant despite service.
7. We have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of
the appellant and have gone through the material placed on record
including the orders passed by the Courts below as well as the
High Court.
8. Having considered the entirety of the material available on
th
record, we find that the order dated 12 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
3
Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No(s). 3180 of 2020
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.
9. As an upshot of above discussion, we are of the opinion that
the view taken by the learned Magistrate cannot be termed to be
illegal or unjustified warranting interference by the High Court in
exercise of the revisional jurisdiction.
th
10. Resultantly, the order dated 15 October, 2018 passed by the
th
learned Additional Sessions Judge as well as the order dated 29
January, 2020 passed by the High Court are quashed and set
aside.
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.
12. The appeal stands allowed accordingly.
4
Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No(s). 3180 of 2020
13. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
.………………………………J.
(B.R. GAVAI)
……………………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
New Delhi;
January 29, 2024.
5