WWW.LIVELAW.IN
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE :9:
M.Cr.C.No.7890/2013 M.P. Mansinghka vs. Dainik Pratah Kaal & ors.
Indore, Dated: 15/02/2018 Shri V.K. Jain, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Govind Raikwar, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri A.S. Parihar, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. Shri T.C. Jain, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. Heard. 1.
The applicant has taken exception to the order dated
12.06.2013 passed in Cr.R.No.17/2013 by the First Additional Sessions Judge,Shajapur, District. Shajapur, by which the revisional Court has upheld the order dated 24.01.2012 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shajapur in an unregistered complaint case. 2.
The question which arises for consideration is whether the
front page contents of news paper Dainik Prathakaal on 12.04.2009 are sufficient for issuing process under Section 204 of C.P.C. for commission of offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC? 3.
The facts leading to filing of the present application under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. are that the front page of the news paper indicated above published a piece of news with respect to the present applicant, which apparently indicated about the trial pending before the Court at District Bundi (Rajasthan) at the behest of respondent No.3. The same also reported series of orders passed against the present applicant by the Court. It is worthy to note that the front page also reflected the photograph
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE :9:
M.Cr.C.No.7890/2013 M.P. Mansinghka vs. Dainik Pratah Kaal & ors.
of the present applicant. 4.
The applicant feeling aggrieved by the contents of the
front page of the news paper published by the respondent No.1 on 12.04.2009 proceeded to lodge a complaint with Press Council of India had also filed a complaint before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shajapur, primarily on the ground that the contents of the front page of the news paper resulted on loss of reputation and the same are sufficient for satisfying the ingredients of Section 499 of IPC. In order to substantiate the ground canvassed the complaint, the applicant pointed out the factual scenario with respect to the allegations printed on the front page of the news paper on 12.04.2009 and also submitted that at no point of time the Court had ever seized the bank account of the applicant nor that there was any order by any Court regarding attachment of his property. He further pointed out that the aspersions leveled on him are directed to defame him in the eye of general public which was the reasons for even publishing his photograph on the front page with the contents of report which brands the present applicant as a person who has cheated the people of crores of rupees and his passport has been ordered to be suspended to prevent him from travelling Abroad. However, the Court of
Judicial
Magistrate First Class did not issue process against the accused person on the ground that the alleged publication was reporting of the Court proceedings and the same falls under Exception 4 of Section 499 of IPC, therefore, the present applicant filed revision application before the Sessions Court,
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE :9:
M.Cr.C.No.7890/2013 M.P. Mansinghka vs. Dainik Pratah Kaal & ors.
which came to be decided on 12.06.2013. Although vide such order the revisional Court adopted the reasoning of the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class and rejected that revision application by following the principle laid down in the case of K.Narendra vs. Amrit Kumar reported in 1973 Cr.L.J. 1637 (Rajasthan). 5.
The applicant being aggrieved by the order dated
12.06.2013 has approached this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 6.
The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
Courts below have ignored the fact that the Press Council of India vide its decision dated 30.07.2010 has arrived at the definite conclusion that the publication carried out in the news paper was clearly violating all norms and ethics of paper publication and the conduct of the Editor in not doing verification of the contents of the report cannot be justified, therefore, he submitted that the Inquiry Committee of the Press Council upheld the contents of the complaint and directed issuance of “Censure” to the Editor of the news paper with a observation that on the basis of the inquiry report further action may be taken by other agencies of the Government which deal with the news paper. He invited the attention of this Court towards the contents of the complaint as also the report, which was printed on 12.04.2009 to point out that the applicant has been able to prove commission of offence punishable under 500 of IPC yet the Courts below have acted in contravention to the established
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE :9:
M.Cr.C.No.7890/2013 M.P. Mansinghka vs. Dainik Pratah Kaal & ors.
legal position and have virtually burdened the present applicant to prove the proposed charge against the respondents by leading evidence which is beyond reasonable doubt. He submits that for the purposes of issuance of process the complainant is not required to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt rather it is sufficient to establish prima-facie commission of offence by the accused persons, therefore, he submits that the orders passed by the Courts below be setaside and the process be issued against the accused persons. 7.
Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents
pointed out that it is an admitted position between the parties that in the year 2000, a case has been filed against the present applicant before the Court at District Bundi (Rajasthan) and thus, the record of proceedings have been spelled out in the said piece of news published on 12.04.2009, therefore, there is no scope of indulgence by this Court. The case is squarely covered by Exception 4 of Section 499 of IPC. Further he pressed into service the reasoning recorded by the Courts below to submit that there is no scope of indulgence by this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 8.
This Court has examined the record and considered the
same in the light of submissions recorded hereinabove. The perusal of the front page contents of the news published on 12.04.2009 by the respondent No.1 clearly shows that there are imputations against the present applicant, which have been scathing in nature and impeach upon the social image of the
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE :9:
M.Cr.C.No.7890/2013 M.P. Mansinghka vs. Dainik Pratah Kaal & ors.
present applicant. 9.
Having perused the same, I am unable to hold that the
Courts below have rightly pronounced the impugned order. In order to substantiate this observation, I feel it appropriate to consider the case from the perspective that the complaint made before the Courts below as also statement of the applicant recorded before the Court of
Judicial Magistrate First Class
clearly spell out the ingredients contained under Section 499 of IPC as while reporting a Court proceeding, which is yet to be taken to its logical end, no offender can be permitted to publish a report which only refers to a version of the one side and completely omits that defence put up from the other side. The manner in which the reporting of the Court proceeding has been done, it is clear that the purpose is to report the version of the one party which will tarnish the reputation of the other side and such type of selective reporting is permitted to be carried out then the Courts will be undermining the rights of the other party which is to lead life with dignity. 10.
The purpose of carving out an exception under Section
499 of IPC was for the benefit of the general public that they are aware about the Court proceedings which will rightly create an impression that the Courts are in control of the proceedings and if such impression is created to boast the confidence in the minds of general public about the majesty of law, then the same can outweigh the right of reputation of an individual. However, the case in hand is obviously not the one which can be held to
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE :9:
M.Cr.C.No.7890/2013 M.P. Mansinghka vs. Dainik Pratah Kaal & ors.
be covered by Exception 4 of Section 499 of IPC at this stage. The applicant is specifically asserted about the factual scenario in the matter that the piece of news published on 12.04.2009 is not accurate reporting of the Court proceedings. 11.
Be that as it may. I have arrived at the afore-stated finding
for the reason that, if the impugned action is held to be covered under Exception 4 of Section 499 of IPC, then it give rise to the situation where a frivolous case is filed against a reputed citizen of the country and thereafter the other party selectively mentions about the pleadings made in the Court against such person even though the other party has not been given any opportunity to clarify on the pleadings reported in the news but still the Courts will have to give such reporting the benefit of Exception 4 of Section 499 of IPC. I have no hesitation in concluding that such state of affairs will abridge the right of any individual to live with dignity and reputation in the society and Exception 4 will become a shield for those, who have dented the basic and sacrosanct right of an individual. 12.
It may be borne in the mind that this Court is not
suggesting that a fair reporting of a Court proceeding is not protected by virtue of Exception 4 of Section 499 of IPC. A report, which substantially deal with contentions of both the parties even though the author and news paper records its own opinion about the entire controversy can, in no manner, be held to be a punishable behaviour under Section 499 of IPC, but the Court cannot turn its blind eye towards inaccurate and selective
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE :9:
M.Cr.C.No.7890/2013 M.P. Mansinghka vs. Dainik Pratah Kaal & ors.
reporting of Court proceedings. 13
What makes the report dated 12.04.2009 more
outrageous is the fact that the photograph of the applicant was also published along with one sided narration of facts that the publication of photograph with a false caption would also amount to defamation. 14.
The perusal above leaves no doubt in the mind of this
Court that the conduct of the respondents can not be given the benefit of Exception 4 of Section 499 of IPC. Moreover, the Courts below have also not given due consideration to the fact that the Press Council of India had categorically observed the contents to be violative of established norms and an action was proposed against the news paper. It is pertinent to observe that the respondent No.1 had taken a defence before the Council that the publication dated 12.04.2009 was not the news item rather the same was only an advertisement. It is interesting to take note of the fact that the Courts below have afforded the protection of Exception 4 to an advertisement which cannot be termed a report on a Court proceedings rather the same is selective narration of one party’s version to the Court proceedings, therefore, the Courts below have erred in holding that an advertisement with a photograph of the applicant is in fact publication of report of the court proceedings. 15.
Now it will be appropriate to deal with the approach of
the Courts below while considering with the complaint filed by
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE :9:
M.Cr.C.No.7890/2013 M.P. Mansinghka vs. Dainik Pratah Kaal & ors.
the present applicant. 16.
The Revisional Court in the impugned judgment has
clearly observed in paragraph 14 that the perusal of news item goes to show that the contents are defamatory in nature, however, the proceedings are protected under Exception 4 of Section 499 of IPC. The Court has observed that the present applicant ought to have furnished more documents to demonstrate that the news item was not accurate account of the Court proceedings. In this regard, the Court has relied upon the decision of Rajasthan High Court in K.Narendra's case (supra). 17.
In the considered opinion of this Court that the decision of
the Rajasthan High Court is in totally different footing as in that case the versions of both the parties were discussed rather than selective narration of one party. Further, the approach of the Court below in insisting for proof which is sufficient to convict an individual is improper because it is well established in the case of S.W. Palanitkar & ors. vs. State of Bihar & another (2002) 1 SCC 241 ; wherein it is held that: “15. In case of a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. or IPC a Magistrate can take cognizance of the offence made out and then has to examine the complainant and his witnesses; if any, to ascertain whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused to issue process so that the issue of process is prevented on a complaint which is either false or vexatious or intended only to harass. Such examination is provided in order to find out whether there is or not sufficient ground for proceeding. The words 'sufficient ground', used under Section 203 have to be construed to mean the satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out against the accused and not sufficient ground for the purpose of conviction.”
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE :9:
M.Cr.C.No.7890/2013 M.P. Mansinghka vs. Dainik Pratah Kaal & ors.
18.
The Court is not required to see that there is sufficient
ground for conviction at a stage when the Court is considering issuance of process to the accused person. 19.
On cumulative consideration of the facts and discussion
made hereinabove this Court is of the considered view that the Court below have erred in rejecting the complaint filed by the present applicant and therefore, the instant application is allowed with direction to the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class to reconsider the facts of the case in the light of the discussion hereinabove and pass a fresh order on the complaint filed by the present applicant. 20.
Consequently, the impugned orders dated 12.06.2013
and 24.01.2012 are hereby set-aside with the direction recorded above. Certified copy as per rules.
(S. K. AWASTHI)
JUDGE
Moni Raju
Digitally signed by Moni Raju DN: c=IN, o=High Court of Madhya Pradesh, ou=Administration, postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=6fb601f03d4083a3289219 d85392bac3bde1be8a53bd80aeba7 af5a5244844c1, cn=Moni Raju Date: 2018.02.20 18:15:37 +05'30'
