TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Upholds Defamation Suit u/s 500 IPC; Emphasizes Trial to Verify Allegations Despite Investigation Delays.</h1> <h3>M.A. Rumugam Versus Kittu</h3> M.A. Rumugam Versus Kittu - AIR 2009 SC 341, (2009) 1 SCC 101 Issues:1. Applicability of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing a complaint petition under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Allegations of defamation against the appellant.3. Burden of proof regarding good faith under the Eight and Ninth Exceptions of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code.4. Discharge of the respondent under Section 167(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.5. Precedent reliance on Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande case.Analysis:The judgment in question pertains to the applicability of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing a complaint petition filed under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant, a retired teacher and landowner, filed a complaint alleging damage to his coconut trees. Subsequently, the respondent filed a private complaint for defamation against the appellant. The High Court dismissed the appellant's plea to quash the complaint, stating that there were prima facie materials to proceed against the appellant, and the matter should be decided during trial.Regarding the allegations of defamation, the complaint petition accused the respondent of damaging coconut trees based on information received from others. The respondent claimed defamation due to false accusations published in newspapers, leading to reputational harm. The court found the allegations sufficient to proceed under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, requiring proof of good faith under the Eight and Ninth Exceptions.The burden of proving good faith for protection of interests lies with the appellant as per the law. The court emphasized that those pleading exceptions must prove them, placing the burden on the appellant to establish the complaint was made in good faith. The High Court's decision not to quash the complaint was upheld, stating it was premature to conclude on the appellant's bad faith at that stage.Furthermore, the respondent was discharged under Section 167(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure due to incomplete investigation within six months. The judgment also referenced the precedent of Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande case, where the court upheld a magistrate's decision not to issue summons based on a report from an inquiry conducted before issuing process.In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's decision. The court highlighted the need for a trial judge to determine the veracity of the complaint and the issue of false accusations against the respondent, considering his absence from India during the alleged incident.
TaxTMI 