1
abs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 386 OF 2009
Balkrishna Narayant Gurav & Ors. .. Petitioners
V/s
State of Maharshtra & Anr. .. Respondents
Mr. S.V. Marwadi i/b Vaibhav & Associates for the petitioners.
Mr. A.P. Bagwe for respondent no.2.
Mr. S.N. Gawade, A.P.P. for the State.
CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J.
DATE : 1ST DECEMBER 2009
ORAL ORDER :
1. By this writ petition, the petitioner prays for quashing of the
complaint (criminal summary case no. 199 of 2007) pending in the Court
of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Lanja.
2. The respondent no.2 claims to be a social worker and a former
sarpanch of a village panchayat. A news item appeared in the
newspaper “Konkan Garjana” on 28th January 2005 making several
imputations about the alleged misconduct of the respondent no.2. The
respondent no.2 has alleged that pamphlets were published and
distributed by the petitioners in the village containing similar defamatory
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:21:45 :::
2
allegations against him. According to him, the contents of the news item
and the pamphlets are per se defamatory. He therefore filed a criminal
complaint against the petitioners.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that whatever has
been stated about the respondent no.2 and his conduct is true and “truth”
is his defence. He further submitted that the case of the petitioners fall
within the eighth exception to section 499 of the I.P.C. Eighth exception
says that it is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against
any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person
with respect to the subject matter of accusation. Publication of a news
item in a newspaper and distribution of the pamphlets, if proved, would
not prima facie amount to making of an accusation to the persons who
have lawful authority over the respondent no.2. In any event, under
section 105 of the Evidence Act, the burden of proving that the
petitioners fall under the eighth exception to section 499 of I.P.C. or any
other exception as provided under the I.P.C., lies on the petitioners. That
burden would be required to be discharged by them at the trial and the
complaint cannot be quashed at the stage of institution itself.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners then submitted that the
respondent no.2 has also filed a civil suit for damages against the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:21:45 :::
3
petitioners. In my view, that cannot be a ground for quashing the
complaint. Defamation being both a civil wrong and a criminal offence,
both the proceedings can be initiated simultaneously.
5. For these reasons, there is no merit in the writ petition which is
hereby dismissed summarily.
(D.G. KARNIK, J.)
ig
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:21:45 :::