AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore in Criminal Case No.23813/2015 dated 07.10.2015 by which, the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the present applicants under Section 500 of IPC.
The facts stated in the complaint are that the complainant is posted as Assistant Accountant in Doordarshan Kendra, Indore from 04.01.2013. Prior to that, he was posted at Doordarshan Kendra, Bhopal as Assistant Accountant. In the year 2014, he submitted a representation to Directorate of Doordarshan requesting his transfer from Doordarshan Kendra, Indore to Doordarshan Kendra, Bhopal. In response to his written representation, the Directorate sought information regarding availability of vacant posts at Doordarshan Kendra, Bhopal which was duly sent by office of Doordarshan Kendra, Bhopal. The present applicants were posted on different posts at Bhopal, however, they were not directly concerned administratively for giving information regarding conduct and character of the complainant. In spite of that they wrote a letter dated 19.02.2014 to Director General, Doordarshan Bhawan, New Delhi. The contents of the letter may reproduced as under:-
"The Director General,
(By name: Shri Rupesh Kumar,So)
(S-II-A Section)
Doordarshan Bhavan,
Copernicus Marg,
New Delhi-110001
Sub: Posting/transfer of Shri A.K. Gupta, Assistant from DDK, Indore,
Sir,
Having come to know that Directrorate has asked certain information of vacant posts in the grade of Assistant with reference to the request by Shri A.K. Gupta, Asistant DDK, Indore on humanitarian ground. Although a formal reply has been sent by the office, yet the undersigned, as Programme Head, consider it appropriate to apprise your goo self some valid facts in this matter, as under:
Shri A.K. Gupta, formerly working at DDK, Bhopal as Assistant was posted here continuously for 21 years and was transferred to Doordarshan Kendra, Indore in public interest th vide Directorate''s Order No.29/1/2010/S-II(A)/949 dtd 27 June, 2011. His transfer order was issued to public interest by the Direcotrate on the basis of number of complaint by staff members against him for his biased behavior.
The Directorate deputed Ms. Sunita Bharal, the then DDA to inquire into the complaint against him. The Kendra was directed to relieve him immediately by the Directorate but Shri Gupta managed to stay somehow and filed an O.A. No.522/2011 before Hon''ble CAT, Jabalpur.
In the judgment Hon''ble CAT, Jabalpur directed that the representation of the applicant may be considered as per rules and to communicate the decision to the applicant. The Directorate again issued an office memorandum vide No.29/1/2010-SII(A)/1118 dtd 3/8/2011 to Shri A.K. Gupta, Assistant and directed the Kendra to relieve him immediately. Again Shri Gupta managed to stay.
Shri A.K. Gupta again filed a fresh O.A. No.692/2011 before the Hon''ble CAT, Jabalpur. The Directorate viewed the matter seriously and vide letter No.19/32/2011-SII/1058 dated 28/8/2012 directed the Kendra to defend the stand taken by the Department in exigency of service and public interest and suggested that the case may be vigorously follod by Kendra in the Court.
Finally the Hon''ble Tribunal has dismissed the O.A. No.692/2011 of Shri A.K. Gupta vide order dated 6/12/2012, thereafter he was relieved form the Kendra on 3/1/2013 judt after 19 months from the Directorate''s order dated 27/6/2011. In this connection, Kendra has spent a considerable amount more than Rs.50,000/- approximately on the court case (Advocate''s fee, tour of official from Directorate to CAT, Jabalpur etc.).
His earlier requests for transfer hav not been considered by Kendra heads for the same reasons. Even Zonal Joint Establishment committee to AIR also did not consider his case as he has also not completed his normal tenure at DDK, Indore, besides other reasons as mentioned.
Hence, it is requested that any decision may kindly be taken keeping in mind the facts signed above. However, if at all, his transfer is unavoidable, it would be in the interest of Kendra to transfer him either AIR, Bhobal or CCW Bhopal and not DDK, Bhopal, so that smooth working atmosphere is maintained at Kendra.
Thanking You,
Yours faithfully
Sd/-
(S.N SINGH)
ASST.DIRECTOR(P)
PROGRAME HEAD"
This application is filed praying that the impugned order taking cognizance against the present applicant may be quashed as their case falls in the second exception appended to Section 499 of IPC, which is as follows:-
"Public Conduct of Public Servants- it is not defamation to expressed in a good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of a public servant in the discharge of his functions, or respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct and no further".
Apart form this ground, various other grounds also taken by the present applicants which include interalia that there were various discrepancies in the statements recorded by the Court, the applicant has no intention or mens ria to defame the complainant. They sent their information in good faith for smooth running of the Kendra.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that they were not directly responsible for administrative control over the complainant/respondent and also they were not responsible for general administration of the Kendra. They sent the information unsolicited, therefore, when such information came in the knowledge of other persons, the reputation of the respondent was lowered down in their eyes, therefore, no case is made out for quashment of complaint. Learned counsel for the respondent also pointed out the order taking cognizance is revisable order, the present applicant has not filed any revision and he directly approached this Court.
I have gone through the contentions of both the counsel and find that no case is made out for quashment of complaint under Section 500 of IPC. The present applicants were acting in their final capacity, and therefore, second exception appended to Section 499 of IPC is not applicable in their case. There is no occasion for them to send his unsolicited information against the present applicant which shows their malafide and intention to malign the reputation of the complainant.
Accordingly, this application has not force and accordingly dismissed.