Good-faith complaints to college authorities about alleged harassment fall within Exception 8 to Section 499 IPC.

The petitioners— a medical student and her father—sought to quash a private complaint alleging defamation under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), pending as C.C. No. 54841/2019 before the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.

The father had written to the Medical College concerning his daughter’s alleged harassment; the College constituted an enquiry committee, which reported that there was no evidence of harassment.

The petitioners contended that the communication was made to the College in good faith to address the daughter’s grievance and fell within Exception 8 to Section 499 IPC.

The respondent’s counsel was absent at the hearing despite having been given an opportunity to make submissions.

1. Whether the father’s communication to the Medical College concerning his daughter’s alleged harassment constituted defamation under Section 499 IPC, or was protected by Exception 8

2. Whether the complaint and criminal proceedings under Section 500 IPC should be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

Section 499 IPC defines defamation, while Section 500 prescribes its punishment.

Exception 8 to Section 499 provides that it is not defamation, when made in good faith, to prefer an accusation against a person to an authority having lawful authority over that person in relation to the subject matter of the accusation.

The Court relied on Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande and Others v. Uttam and Another, (1999) 3 SCC 134, which applied Exception 8 to a complaint made to a superior officer and held that requiring the accused to face trial was not justified where the allegations did not disclose defamation.

The Court considered the petition under Section 482 CrPC, which empowers the High Court to quash proceedings where intervention is warranted in the interests of justice.

The Court found that the father’s letter was addressed to the Medical College to ventilate his daughter’s grievance and led to an enquiry within the institution; it was not shown to have been published to defame the respondent.

The fact that the enquiry found no evidence of harassment did not, by itself, make the father’s communication defamatory or justify defamation proceedings.

Given the parent’s purpose in raising the grievance with the institution, the Court held that the communication fell within Exception 8 to Section 499 IPC. It concluded that the complaint did not disclose a case warranting prosecution under Section 500 IPC, consistently with the principle in Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande.

It allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings initiated against both petitioners in C.C. No. 54841/2019.