(Prayer:- This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS to call for entire records in CC.No.1524 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-II, at Pondicherry and quash the same and pass such order or other orders as this Honble court may deem fit.)

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1524 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-II, Pondicherry.

2. The case of the respondent/complainant is that he is a reputed Safety Advisor/Consultant in the Oil and Gas Industry and enjoys a good reputation in society. The petitioner/accused, a practising Advocate, was involved in civil proceedings concerning immovable property between the respondent/complainant and one Mrs. Tillay Narmadha. Owing to the disputes arising in the said proceedings, the accused allegedly developed animosity towards the complainant. With an intention to harm his reputation and to deter him from pursuing the civil litigation, the accused made false, derogatory and defamatory allegations against him in complaints submitted on 25.04.2023 before the District Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Home Secretary and Superintendent of Police, Puducherry.

3. In particular, it is alleged that the accused had stated that the complainant was habitually carrying a firearm and entering the Court premises at Puducherry, and therefore, sought cancellation of his firearm licence. It is further alleged that the petitioner had made serious imputations against the respondent/complainant, including the allegations that the respondent/complainant had threatened or misbehaved with the Judicial Officer. Owing to the aforesaid allegations, the petitioner intended to cause harm to his reputation and cause him mental agony and social embarrassment. To wreak vengeance, the petitioner is alleged to have made the said complaints containing false and defamatory imputations. The II learned Additional District Judge, Puducherry, specifically mentioned in his report dated 20.04.2023 addressed to the learned Principal District Judge Puducherry, that no such complaint from other persons regarding the carrying of a firearm inside the Court hall had been witnessed. Even thereafter, the petitioner is stated to have lodged another complaint dated 25.04.2023 before the learned District Magistrate, Puducherry, containing allegedly false, derogatory and defamatory statements and the same was dismissed as baseless by order dated 26.08.2023.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused would submit that the complaints sent by the petitioner to the District Collector cum District Magistrate, the Home Secretary, the Superintendent of Police, Puducherry, were made in good faith and in the course of pursuing his grievance before the statutory authorities. According to the learned counsel, such communications would not constitute defamation. Further, the respondent/complainant was habitually carrying a firearm and entering the Court premises at Puducherry and therefore, sought cancellation of his firearm licence. According to the petitioner, the respondent/complainant, with an intention to wreak vengeance, had filed a private complaint against the petitioner herein for the offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC.

5. The learned counsel would further submit that the letter alleged to have been written by the petitioner was only a communication addressed to the competent statutory authorities and therefore, the same would not amount to defamation, as claimed by the respondent/complainant. Reliance has been placed upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Court to contend that a communication made to the District Collector or any other competent authority, in the circumstances stated therein, would not constitute defamation and therefore, the criminal proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be quashed.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent/complainant, on the other hand, would submit that the allegations made by the petitioner were false and defamatory and were made with the intention of lowering the reputation of the complainant. It is further submitted that the petitioner had made allegations regarding the carrying of a firearm inside the Court premises and the alleged conduct of the complainant towards the Judicial Officer, which allegations were not substantiated. Whether the petitioner had made the complaints in good faith and whether the communications are protected by any exception to the offence of defamation are matters which have to be decided on the basis of evidence during trial.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent would further submit that on the petitioner/accused had made a complaint before the II Additional District Judge, Puducherry and after enquiry, the learned Judge, by report  dated 20.04.2023, had recorded that no such alleged incident had taken place. Thereafter, the petitioner lodged another complaint dated 25.04.2023 before the learned District Magistrate, Puducherry, which was subsequently dismissed as baseless by the order dated 26.08.2023. The petitioner had also sent complaints to the District Collector cum District Magistrate, the Home Secretary and the Superintendent of Police, Puducherry alleging that the respondent/complainant was carrying a firearm inside the Court premises and  the respondent/complainant is stated to have admitted during the hearing that he himself had been carrying a firearm in his pocket inside the Court hall.

8. The learned counsel for the respondent would also submit that the report of the learned II Additional District Judge, dated 20.04.2023, clearly shows that the allegations regarding the carrying of a firearm inside the Court premises were not substantiated. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the petitioner cannot contend at this stage that the complaints were made in good faith. In a proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court would not ordinarily conduct a detailed enquiry into the evidence or determine whether the defence raised by the accused is ultimately sustainable. Since the complaint contains primafacie materials constituting the offence punishable under Sections 499 and 500 IPC, the proceedings ought not to be quashed at the threshold.

9. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

10. Admittedly, the respondent/complainant has filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Puducherry for the offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 IPC. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner/accused had sent complaints against the respondent/complainant before the District Collector cum District Magistrate, the Home Secretary, the Superintendent of Police, Puducherry.

11. It is the main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the basis of the complaints sent by the petitioner to the statutory authorities , the respondent/complainant cannot prosecute the petitioner for defamation. The main allegation against the petitioner, as raised in the complaint, is that the petitioner had made serious imputations against the respondent/complainant, including the allegations that (i) the respondent/complainant had carried a firearm inside the Court hall and (ii) the respondent/complainant had threatened or misbehaved with the Judicial Officer.

12. In this context, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Kerala High Court reported in CDJ 2020 Kerala High Court 1481 ( David John v.Jose Moothedan), wherein in paragraph 6, it was held as follows:-

                          “...6. In this case, the admitted case of the first respondent is that the petitioner made a complaint to the District Collector, Thrissur to cancel the arm license of the first respondent and others and to initiate criminal proceedings for misrepresenting the facts before the District Collector for not surrendering the arms in connection with the Kerala Assembly Election, 2016. Annexure-A3 is the complaint. A reading of the Annexure-3 will not primafacie, constitute the ingredients as contained in Section 499 IPC. Moreover, when a citizen make a complaint to the authorities to cancel an arms license issued to a person for certain specific reasons, the same will not amounts to defamation as contained in Section 499 IPC. Similarly, filing a complaint before the statutory authority to cancel an arms license, will not come within the purview of “makes or publishes” mentioned in Section 499 IPC. There is no publication of the complaint, if a complaint is submitted by a citizen to the District Collector for taking appropriate action for cancelling an arms licence. In such situation, the licensee of the arms cannot file a complaint to prosecute a person for defamation. If he sustained any loss for not taking appropriate action by the authorities in view of the complaint, he may have a civil remedies. That does not meant that he can file a complaint to prosecute that person, who filed the complaint. In this case, even a reading of Annexure-A3 complaint alleged to be filed by the petitioner to the District collector, Thrissur, no ingredients of defamation is attracted. This is a case which ought not have been taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate.”

13. In the said case, the complaint was preferred by the respondent seeking cancellation of the firearm licence of the complainant and it was held that the complainant could not prosecute the petitioner for defamation.

14. However, in the present case, the allegation is that the respondent/complainant had carried a firearm inside the Court premises during the Court proceedings and had threatened or misbehaved with the Judicial Officer. The said allegations were considered by the learned II Additiional District Judge, who had found that no such occurrence had taken place in the Court. Further, the District Magistrate had also dealt with the complaint sent by the petitioner .

15. Therefore, the factual circumstances relied upon by the petitioner and those arising in the present case require consideration on the basis of the materials available on record. The question as to whether the imputations made by the petitioner were true or false, whether they were made in good faith and whether the petitioner is entitled to claim the benefit of any of the exceptions to section 499 IPC are matters, which require appreciation of evidence.

16. In a proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court can not ordinarily go into an in-depth appreciation of the evidence placed before it. The Court has to examine whether the allegations made in the complaint, taken at their face value in their entirety, constitute the offences alleged by the complainant.

17. In the present case, the contents of the complaint make out a primafacie case for the offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 IPC. The allegations contained in the complaint cannot, at this stage, be said to be so inherently improbable or devoid of substance as to warrant interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

18. Likewise, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner/accused had sent the complaints to the statutory authorities in good faith and in the interest of justice is a matter which has to be considered during the course of trial. Whether the communications made by the petitioner are protected as privileged communications and whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of any of the exceptions to Section 499 IPC are matters which require consideration on the basis of evidence and cannot be conclusively determined in a proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

19. One another contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Trial Court has taken cognizance of the case in a mechanical manner without following the procedure contemplated under law, and therefore, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.

20. However, from the materials placed before this Court, it appears that the learned Magistrate, after examining the complainant and the witnesses on his side, had taken cognizance of the case upon application of mind. No sufficient material has been placed before this Court to establish that the cognizance was taken mechanically or without following the procedure prescribed by law.

21. Therefore, at this stage, this Court cannot undertake a detailed examination of the evidence or determine the ultimate truthfulness of the allegations. The defence raised by the petitioner, including the plea of good faith, privileged communication and the circumstances in which the complaints were made, can be effectively considered by the learned Trial Court during the course of trial.

22. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that the allegations contained in the complaint, taken at their face value, primfacie disclose the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 IPC. The issues raised by the petitioner involve questions of fact and require appreciation of evidence, which cannot be undertaken in the present proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Therefore, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the criminal proceedings pending before the Trial Court and this Criminal Original Petition is liable to be dismissed.

23. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.