Defamation proceedings cannot continue absent a defamatory imputation against the complainant.

The petitioners were the Chief Editor and Printer/Publisher, respectively, of Asomiya Pratidin.

The respondent filed Complaint Case No. 209/2010 alleging that news items published in the newspaper on 3 December 2010 and 6 December 2010 falsely suggested that he had received money in connection with PWD works and had thereby engaged in financial irregularities or misappropriation.

The Judicial Magistrate First Class, North Lakhimpur, took cognizance under Sections 500/501/34 of the IPC and issued summons by order dated 22 December 2010.

The petitioners challenged the order under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., contending that the publications neither defamed the complainant nor made any allegation of misappropriation against him and were made in good faith for the public good, thereby attracting the First Exception to Section 499 IPC.

During the hearing, the complainant’s counsel submitted that the complainant had no grievance against the petitioners and that his reputation had not been adversely affected.

1. Whether the Magistrate was justified in taking cognizance under Sections 500/501/34 of the IPC on the basis of the impugned newspaper publications and issuing summons to the petitioners.

2. Whether the criminal complaint and the cognizance order were liable to be quashed in exercise of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., particularly in view of the complainant’s statement that he had no grievance against the petitioners.

The Court considered Section 499 IPC, which defines defamation, including the requirement of an imputation concerning a person made with the intention of harming, or with knowledge that it will harm, that person’s reputation.

It also referred to the First Exception to Section 499 IPC, under which an imputation that is true and made for the public good does not constitute defamation.

The alleged offences were under Sections 500 and 501 IPC, relating respectively to punishment for defamation and printing or engraving matter known to be defamatory.

The Court further referred to Section 320 Cr.P.C., which permits compounding of defamation offences by the person defamed, and to the revisional compounding power under Section 401 Cr.P.C.

The petition was ultimately decided under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

The petitioners asserted that the publications highlighted alleged irregularities in the PWD department and did not impute misappropriation or other defamatory conduct to the complainant.

They also invoked the First Exception to Section 499 IPC, arguing that the reports were published in good faith for the public good.

The Court noted the complainant’s submission that he had no grievance against the petitioners and that the publications had not damaged his reputation.

In light of these submissions, and particularly the absence of any continuing grievance from the complainant, the Court found it appropriate to interfere with the Magistrate’s order taking cognizance and to terminate the criminal proceedings.

The matter was accordingly disposed of.