To constitute defamation, the statement when read as a whole must satisfy the necessary ingredients: High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
A statement cannot be said to be defamatory unless it is taken in its full context and then fulfils the necessary ingredients required under the relevant laws. This was held in the judgement passed by a single member bench of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir consisting of Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul in the case of T.K. Ganjoo v Meenu Betab [CRMC 808/2018] on 19th July 2021. The petitioner, T.K. Ganjoo filed the present petition seeking the quashment of order dated 4th June 2018 passed by the 2nd Additional Munsiff of Jammu whereby cognizance for defamation under Section 499/500 of the Ranbir Penal Code has been  by the magistrate on the complaint filed by the respondent, Meenu Betab against the petitioner. The impugned order is challenged on the grounds that the complaint does not disclose any offence cognizable under Sections 499 or 500 of the RPC as the allegations levelled in the complaint do not constitute the said offences as have none of the necessary ingredients. As per Section 499 of the RPC, Defamation can be alleged when words either spoken or intended to be read or by signs or is visible from words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputations will harm the reputation of a person. The petitioner submitted that none of the necessary ingredients have been fulfilled and the complaint was filed against him with the sole objective of harassment. It was contended that not a single word written in the legal notice was prima facie defamatory in nature as per the ingredients laid out in Section 499 of the RPC. The counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner had used defamatory language against the respondent in the legal notice issued against her.
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU CRMC 808 2018 Reserved on 15.07.2021 Pronounced on 19.07.2021 h475 T.K.Ganjoo Through: Mr. Sumeer Pandita Advocate Meenu Betab ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Sunil Sethi Sr. Advocate with Mr. Paras Gupta Advocate. Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL JUDGE This petition filed under Section 561 A CrPC quashment setting aside the order dated 04.06.2018 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Munsiff Jammu whereby cognizance under Section 499 500 RPC has been taken by the learned Magistrate on the complaint filed by the respondent and process issued against the petitioner for appearance. The order is challenged primarily on the ground that the complaint does not disclose any offence cognizable under Section 499 500 RPC as the allegations levelled in the complaint do not constitute offence under Section 499 500 RPC having none of the ingredients thereof. It is submitted that defamation can be alleged when the words either spoken or intended to be read or by signs or by visible by words either spoken or intended to be read or by signs or by visible representations makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm or knowing or having reason to CRMC 808 2018 believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of a person. It is submitted that complaint has been filed against the petitioner in order to harass and torture him. It is further submitted that there was not even a single word written in the legal notice which on the face of it was defamatory in nature as such the ingredients of Section 499 do not exist for taking cognizance by the Magistrate and the order impugned deserves to be quashed. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner has used defamatory language in the legal notice issued against her. In order to appreciate the arguments it would be appropriate to go through the relevant provisions being Section 499 RPC which for facility of reference is reproduced thus: Section 499 Defamation.— Whoever by words either spoken or intended to be read or by signs or by visible representations makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of such person is said except in the cases hereinafter expected to defame that person”. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and going through the material place on record and after going through the provisions of law it can easily be said that the complaint filed by the respondent before the Magistrate do not constitute the ingredients of Section 499 RPC. To constitute an offence punishable under Section 499 RPC the complaint and the statement recorded must satisfy the ingredients of such offence. The complaint when read as a whole does not state anywhere that the words used in the legal notice had lowered the reputation of the complainant in the estimation of public. The allegations which have been CRMC 808 2018 made in the complaint do not in any way fall within the purview of the provisions of Section 499 RPC. These allegations made in the complaint are with regard to the official functioning and performance of their duties. Even if some words have been written in a legal notice those would not be construed to be such words as would ordinarily effect the reputation of any body and lower his her reputation in the estimation of public. What is alleged to have been written by the petitioner in the legal notice can at the most constitute a specific offence under the Penal Code but would not be defamation in order to attract the provisions of Section 499 500 RPC. The trial Court appears to have issued the process without going through the provisions of Section 499 RPC and without satisfying itself whether the allegations made in the complaint and in the statement would amount to a defamation or not. The trial Court while taking cognizance of the complaint and issuing process has failed to exercise its jurisdiction in accordance with law. One of the allegations is regarding the language used in the legal notice that would amount to an offence under the provisions of Penal Code other than the provisions of Section 499 RPC and in such a situation when the ingredients of Section 499 RPC are not satisfied by the complainant and his witnesses taking cognizance and issuing process would amount to abuse of process of law. That apart there are allegations of filing of complaints by both the parties against each other at different times. There are also allegations and counter allegations of mismanagement and harassment. All these things would not constitute ingredients of Section 499. CRMC 808 2018 Accordingly the petition is allowed and the order taking cognizance by issuing summons to the petitioner on the complaint filed by the respondent is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Magistrate along with record for consigning the same to the records. Vinod Chatterji Koul) Judge Sanjeev PS Whether the order is speaking : Yes No Whether the order is reportable: Yes No 