Dr. Shambhuji vs Saurabh Kulshrestha

Impugned  order  of  3rd   November,  2018  dismisses  petitioner's complaint for defamation by observing that the alleged defamatory statement is part of necessary pleadings in a civil suit and so, alleged defamatory statement is squarely covered under Exception 8 of Section 499 IPC.

Petitioner, who appears in person, chooses to argue himself. He submits that in reply to application under Section 340 Cr.P.C., respondent at three places stated that petitioner has forcibly dispossessed his mother. It is pointed out that respondent in the Reply (Annexure P-8) has stated that petitioner has beaten his mother and had threatened her to throw her out of her own house. It is pointed out that petitioner's mother had made a statement (Annexure P-13) to the local police that she is voluntarily going with her nephew-Shailender to his house. So, it is submitted that respondent ought to be tried in petitioner's complaint for defamation. It is pointed out that the defamatory allegation by respondent against petitioner do not figure in the pleadings of the parties in pending civil suit for partition. Reliance is placed upon decision of 27th February, 2015 of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.Rev. P.16/2008 titled as M/S TATA Motors Ltd. Vs. State & Ors. by petitioner in support of his submissions.

Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned order of 3rd  November, 2018, petitioner's pre-summoning evidence, material on record and decision in M/S TATA Motors Ltd. (Supra), I find that the allegations levelled against petitioner were made in the pending suit for partition between the parties and the alleged defamatory statement has not been made out of context. The trial court has rightly brought the case of respondent under exception 8 to Section 499 IPC and has dismissed petitioner's complaint. Reliance placed by petitioner upon decision in M/S TATA Motors Ltd. (Supra), is of no assistance as in order to defend himself, the respondent has made allegations against petitioner in reply to application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and these allegations cannot be viewed in isolation.

Finding no infirmity in the impugned order, this petition is accordingly dismissed.