wp_4960_2014.

doc

Mr.RahulGandhi,M.P.
Vice President, Indian National
Congress, residing at 12, Tuglak
Lane,NewDelhi110011
Versus

C
ou

CRIMINALWRITPETITIONNO.4960OF2014

rt

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREATBOMBAY
CRIMINALAPPELLATEJURISDICTION

...Petitioner

ig
h

1.RajeshMahadevKunte
Business man residing at
Kanchangauri, Kasaral Bhiwandi,
ThaneDist.

2.StateofMaharashtra
Government Pleader office
Criminal Appellate Side High
CourtBombay

ba
y

...Respondents

om

Mr. R.S. Cheema, Sr. counsel a/w Mr. Prasad Dhakepalkar,

Sr. Advocate, Mr. K.C. Mittal and Ms Tarannum Cheema i/b
Mr. Manmohan Rao and Ms Deepa Kamath for Petitioner.
Mr. V.S. Kokaje, senior counsel i/b Ms Anuradha A. Garge a/w
Mr. Vinayak Dixit, and Mr. R.S. Apte, senior counsel for
Respondent No.1.
Mr. S.K. Shinde, P.P. a/w Mr. V.B.K. Deshmukh, APP,
for the Respondent No.2-State.

CORAM:M.L.TAHALIYANI,J.
DATEONWHICHTHEJUDGMENTIS
RESERVED:9thMarch,2015.
DATEONWHICHTHEJUDGMENTIS
PRONOUNCED:10thMarch,2015.

Megha

1 of 16

::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2015 14:29:31 :::

wp_4960_2014.doc

rt

JUDGMENT:

C
ou

Admitted. Byconsentofthepartiestakenupforthwithfor
finalhearing.

2.

ThePetitionerismemberofParliamentandisvicepresident

ig
h

of Indian National Congress (I.N.C.). He is aggrieved by the order

passed by the 3rd Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhiwandi in
OMA/353/2014 dated 1172014summoningthePetitionertoappear

beforehimandtoanswerthechargefortheoffencepunishableunder
section500oftheIPC. Theprocesshasbeenissuedonthecomplaint

ba
y

filed by Respondent No.1. The Respondent No.1 is a resident of

Bhiwandi (DistrictThane) and claims to be a member of Rashtriya

om

SwayamsevakSangh(R.S.S.)sincechildhood.Atpresentheisworkingas
Karyawah (Secretary) of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, Bhiwandi

Taluka.

3.

HehasallegedthattherewasarallyofI.N.C.on632014at

village Sonale near Bhiwandi for parliament election campaign. The

rallywasaddressedbythePetitioner. ItisallegedthatthePetitioner
duringthecourseofaddresstothepublicandmediahadallegedthat
Megha

2 of 16

::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2015 14:29:31 :::

wp_4960_2014.doc

ofallegedoffendingportioncanbereproducedasunder:

rt

themembersbelongingtoR.S.S.hadkilledGandhiji.Englishtranslation

C
ou

WegavethetelephonetoIndia,Thisistheirstyle.

Gandhijiwaskilledbythem;personsfromtheR.S.S.
Shot Gandhiji. And today their people talk of
Gandhiji.SardarPatel:SardarPatelJiwasaleader
oftheCongressParty. Hewaswrittenverylucidly

ig
h

abouttheR.S.S.; hehaswrittenveryclearlyabout
theirorganisation.

The main offending portion of the address was, Gandhiji

4.

was killedby them;personsfromR.S.S.ShotGandhiji. Respondent

ba
y

No.1 in his complaint has alleged that by making such a statement

against R.S.S., the Petitionerhascommittedoffence ofdefamationas
definedundersection499andpunishableundersection500oftheIPC.

om

ItisallegedthatintentionwastoharmthereputationofR.S.S.andits

members.

5.

On receipt of complaint the learned Magistrate took

statementofRespondentNo.1onoathandsentthecomplainttopolice
forenquiryundersection202ofCr.P.C.Afterreceiptofenquiryreport,a
summonsasstatedabovehasbeenissuedagainstthePetitioner.

Megha

3 of 16

::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2015 14:29:31 :::

wp_4960_2014.doc

The arguments of learned senior counsel Mr. Cheema and

rt

6.

C
ou

learnedseniorCounselMr.KokajeonbehalfofthePetitionerandthe
Respondent No.1 respectively, were heard. At the outset it may be
mentioned here that Petitioner does not deny to have made the
statementallegedagainsthimbytheRespondentNo.1. Itisadmitted

ig
h

positionthatarallywasheldatvillageSonaleanditisfurtheradmitted
position that the statement with regard to R.S.S. was made by the

Petitionerduringthecourseofhisaddress. Itisnotdeniedthatthe
portionsofaddressofthePetitionerwerepublishedinelectronicaswell

7.

ba
y

asprintmedia.

Sincethefactualpositionwithregardtomakingofthestatement

om

andpublicationthereofisadmitted,theprimequestionwhichneedsto
beexaminedisastowhetherthePetitionerintendedtoharmorknew

thathewouldbeharmingorhadreasontobelievethatthestatement
madebyhimwouldharmthereputationofR.S.S.andconsequentlyits
membersincludingRespondentNo.1.

Megha

4 of 16

::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2015 14:29:31 :::

wp_4960_2014.doc

8.

ThereisnodisputethatR.S.S.isadeterminatebodyandit

rt

willfallunderthe Explanation2 ofsection499oftheIPC. Therefore,

C
ou

anyoffendedmemberofR.S.S.issaidtobeaggrievedpersonandcan
fileacomplaint,againstapersonwhointendstoharmthereputationof
R.S.S.

Asalreadystatedwhatisrequiredtobeconsideredisasto

ig
h

9.

whethertherewasrequisiteintentionorknowledgeonthepartofthe
Petitionerorwhetherhehadreasontobelievethathewouldbeharming

reputationofR.S.S.bymakingtheallegedstatement.Duringthecourse
ofargumentslearnedseniorcounselforthePetitionersubmittedthatthe

ba
y

factsofthecaseandthebackgroundinwhichthestatementwasmade
by the Petitioner need tobe considered. Learnedsenior counsel Mr.

om

CheemahassubmittedthatthePetitionerwasaddressingthemembers
ofrallyonthepointofphilosophyofCongressandthestatementmade

bythePetitionershallbereadinthatcontext.Itwasfurthersubmitted
thatthestatementmadebythePetitionerwasplainstatementandthat
the Petitioner did not intend to harm the reputation of R.S.S. The
reference to the killers of Gandhiji had come in the speech of the
PetitioneronlybecausethePetitionerfeltthatnamesofGandhijiand
SardarVallabhbhaiPatelwereappropriatedorusurpedbyB.J.P.though

Megha

5 of 16

::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2015 14:29:31 :::

wp_4960_2014.doc

boththeleadersoriginallybelongedtoCongress. Thestatementwas

rt

made by the Petitioner in that context and not witha viewto harm

C
ou

reputation of R.S.S. It was submitted by learned senior counsel Mr.

Cheemathatitisamatterofhistoryandtheissueregardingkillingof
Gandhijiisapublicquestionanditisinapublicdomain.Therefore,if
anystatementismadebythePetitionerinrespectofaquestionwithin

ig
h

thepublicdomain itwouldnotamounttodefamationandwouldbe
coveredbyThirdExceptionofsection499oftheIPC.
MyattentionwasinvitedtotheGovernmentResolutionby

10.

whichR.S.S.wasbannedon421948.Myattentionwasalsoinvitedto

ba
y

theletterswrittenbySardarVallabhbhaiPatelandDr.ShyamaPrasad
MukherjeetothethenR.S.S.Chief.Asfarasquestionofmaintainability

om

ofthePetitionundersection482ofCr.P.C.isconcerned,learnedsenior
counselMr.Cheemahassubmittedthatallegedoffendingstatementisto

be read alongwith the preceding and succeeding portion of the said

statement.Itwillbeclearthatintentionwasnottoharmthereputation
ofR.S.S.Itissubmittedthatifthiscanbeconcludedatthisstage,why
the Petitioner shall be relegatedtotheTrialCourt togothroughthe
ordealoftrial.

Megha

6 of 16

::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2015 14:29:31 :::

wp_4960_2014.doc

11.

LearnedseniorcounselMr.Kokajeappearingonbehalfofthe

rt

RespondentNo.1hassubmittedthatifthePetitionerclaimsthathiscase

C
ou

wascoveredbyanyoftheexception,hehastoestablishthatbeforethe
TrialCourtandnotduringthecourseofhearingundersection482of
Cr.P.C.Itiscontendedbyhimthatastowhetherstatementwasmadein
goodfaithandwhetheritamountedtoopinionregardingtheconductof

ig
h

R.S.S.withrespecttoapublicquestionwillhavetobedecidedbythe

12.

TrialCourtandnotbythisCourt.

LearnedseniorcounselMr.Cheemahasplacedrelianceon

ba
y

thejudgmentofHonbleSupremeCourtreportedat(1977)2Supreme
CourtCases699. Myattentionwasinvitedtoportionofpara7ofthe

om

judgment,whichreadsasunder:
Intheexerciseofthiswholesomepower,theHighCourtis
entitledtoquashaproceedingifitcomestotheconclusion
thatallowingtheproceedingtocontinuewouldbeanabuse
oftheprocessoftheCourtorthattheendsofjusticerequire
thattheproceedingoughttobequashed.Thesavingofthe
High Courts inherent powers, both in civil and criminal
matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose
whichisthatacourtproceedingoughtnottobepermittedto
degenerateintoaweaponofharassmentorpersecution.Ina
Megha

7 of 16

::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2015 14:29:31 :::

wp_4960_2014.doc

criminalcase,theveiledobjectbehindalameprosecution,

rt

theverynatureofthematerialonwhichthestructureofthe

C
ou

prosecutionrestsandthelikewouldjustifytheHighCourtin
quashingtheproceedingintheinterestofjustice.Theends
ofjusticearehigherthantheendsofmerelawthoughjustice

hasgottobeadministeredaccordingtolawsmadebythe
legislature. The compelling necessity for making these
observationsisthatwithoutaproperrealizationoftheobject

ig
h

and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the

inherentpowersoftheHighCourttodojusticebetweenthe
Stateanditssubjects,itwouldbeimpossibletoappreciate

thewidthandcontoursofthatsalientjurisdiction.

Learned seniorcounselMr.Kokaje,appearingonbehalfof

ba
y

13.

theRespondentNo.1hasplacedrelianceonlatestjudgmentofSupreme
CourtinthematterofP.S.MeherhomjiV/s.K.T.VijayKumarandOrs.

om

reported at (2015) 1 Supreme Court Cases 788. The Honble

Supreme Court after having considered the various judgments of the

SupremeCourthascometothefollowingconclusion:
13.Indisputably,judicialprocessshouldnotbeaninstrument
of oppression or needless harassment. The court should be
circumspectandjudiciousinexercisingdiscretionandshould
takealltherelevantfactsandcircumstancesintoconsideration
before issuing processlest it wouldbe an instrument in the

Megha

8 of 16

::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2015 14:29:31 :::

wp_4960_2014.doc

handsofprivatecomplainantasvendettatoharassthepersons

rt

needlessly.

C
ou

14.Itisequallywellsettledthatsummoningofanaccusedin

a criminal case is a serious matter and the order taking

cognizance by the Magistrate summoning the accused must
reflectthathehasappliedhismindtothefactsofthecaseand

thelawapplicablethereto. Section482ofCodeofCriminal
Procedure empowers the High court to exercise its inherent

ig
h

powerstopreventabuseoftheprocessofcourtandtoquash
the proceeding instituted on the complaint but such power
couldbeexercisedonlyincaseswherethecomplaintdoesnot

disclose any offence or is vexatious or oppressive. If the

allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the
offence of which cognizance istaken by the Magistrate it is

ba
y

opentotheHighCourttoquashthesameinexerciseofpower
underSection482.

15.SofarasthecomplaintallegingtheoffenceunderSection

om

499IPCisconcerned,ifonconsiderationoftheallegationsthe
complaintissupportedbyastatementofthecomplainanton
oathandthenecessaryingredientsoftheoffencearedisclosed,

theHighCourtshouldnotnormallyinterferewiththeorder
takingcognizance.

14.

In my view the recent judgment of the Honble Supreme

CourtsummarisestheviewoftheHonbleSupremeCourtontheissueof
exercise of inherent powers of the High Court. After having gone
Megha

9 of 16

::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2015 14:29:31 :::

wp_4960_2014.doc

throughthejudgmentcitedbythelearnedseniorcounsel,Ihavecome

rt

totheconclusionthatinnormalcourse,ifthecomplaintmakesouta

C
ou

primafaciecase,HighCourtwouldnotinterfereinexerciseofitspowers
undersection482ofCr.P.C.However,nostraitjacketformulacanbelaid
downforthesameanditmaydifferfromcasetocaseonthebasisof
factsandcircumstances.Itispossiblethatinaparticularcaseitmaybe

ig
h

apparentonthefaceofrecorditselfthattheprosecutionshouldnotbe
continued and in that event High Court might give relief to the

aggrieved person by resorting to section 482 of Cr.P.C. Some of the

categorieswheretheinherentpowerscouldbeexercisedbytheHigh

ba
y

Court have been cataloged in para 21 of the judgment of Honble

Supreme Court reported at AIR 1960 SC 866 as in the matter of
JeffreyJ.DiermeierV/s.StateofWestBengal,onwhichreliancehas

om

beenplacedbyboththeseniorcounsel. Para21ofthesaidjudgment

canbereproducedasunder:
21. In one of the earlier cases, in R.P. Kapur v. State of
Punjab this Court had summarised some of the categories of
cases where the inherent power under Section 482 of the
Code could be exercised by the High Court to quash criminal
proceedings against the accused. These are:
(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar
against the institution or continuance of the proceedings e.g.

Megha

10 of 16

::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2015 14:29:31 :::

wp_4960_2014.doc
want of sanction;

rt

(ii) where the allegations in the first information report or

the complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their

C
ou

entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;

(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is

no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly
or manifestly fails to prove the charge.

Assuchitisabundantlyclearthatifthecaseismadeoutto

ig
h

15.

demonstratethattheprocessofCourthasbeenabusedorinterestof

justicedemand,thentheCourtmayquashtheproceedinginexerciseof

ba
y

itspowersundersection482ofCr.P.C.

16.

Inthepresentcaseasalreadystated,thelearnedcounselfor

thePetitionerhasinvitedmyattentiontotheorderbanningR.S.S.and

om

contentsoflettersaddressedtothethenR.S.S.Chief,ShriGolwalkarby
ShriSardarVallabhbhaiPatelandDr.ShyamaPrasadMukherjee.Inthis

regard I would not comment much in detail on the contents of the

banningorderandthelettersas,ifultimatelythisCourtdismissesthe
presentpetition,letterswillhavetobeprovedinaccordancewithlaw.
Contentsofthelettersandthebanningorderswillhavetobeprovedin
accordancewithlawbeforetheTrialCourt. Sufficeittosaythatboth

Megha

11 of 16

::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2015 14:29:31 :::

wp_4960_2014.doc

thelettersandthebanningorderdidnotdirectlystatethattheassassins

rt

ofGandhijiweremembersofR.S.S.Myattentionwasalsoinvitedtothe

C
ou

statement made by the accused, who was part of the conspiracy to

assassinate Mahatmaji. Statementsare statedtobe made before the
Trial Court during the course of trial of the assassins. What can be
stated in this regard also is that the same willhave tobe proved in

ig
h

accordancewithlawbeforetheTrialCourt.Thenextissuewhichmay
arisebeforetheTrialCourtisastowhatistheeffectofthosestatements.

TheissuewhichmayneedconsiderationbeforetheTrialCourtisasto
whetherR.S.S.hadownedthattheassassinsweremembersofR.S.S.

ba
y

ThecomplaintclearlystatesthatR.S.S.didnotownthemandthatthe
allegedoffendingstatementmadebythePetitionerwasfalsewithinhis

om

knowledge.

17.

LearnedseniorcounselMr.Cheemainvitedmyattentionto

thejudgmentofPunjabandHaryanaHighCourtinthematterofAroon
Purie&Ors.V/s.StateofHaryana&Anrwhereanarticlepublishedin
IndiaTodayissueofAugust18,2003hadcomeupforconsideration.
Therelevantportionofthesaidarticlecanbereproducedasunder:
1948Oneofthegreatestideasofthe20 th centurywas

Megha

12 of 16

::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2015 14:29:31 :::

wp_4960_2014.doc

killed at 5.03 p.m. on January 30, 1948. Mohandas

rt

KaramchandGandhi,themanwholedIndiatofreedom

C
ou

byredefiningtheveryconceptofprotest,steppedoutof

theBirlaHouseinDelhiandwalkedtowardsthegarden
toholdaprayermeeting. Amongthe300peoplewho
greetedhimthateveningwas NathuramGodse,anRSS

worker, who fired three shots at close range from his

automatic 9 mm Beretta into the fragile chest of the

Learned single Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court

18.

ig
h

Mahatma.(Emphasissupplied)

whiledealingwiththehistoricalbackgroundhadpointedoutinpara32

ba
y

ofthesaidjudgmentasunder:
32.Inthebackdropoftheabove,ifthepublicationisseen
andespeciallyinthecontextthatthereisaragingdebate

om

attributedtothehistorians,whohavetriedtotracethepug
marksofsuchhistoricalcharacters,anyimputationwhichis
madepresumablyonthebasisofthematerialwhichifnot
even entirely true is near to the truth and inference as
truthful as the truth itself; cannot be termed to be
defamatory. Thedoctrineoffaircommentencompasses
thatifapublicationwhichbroadlyspeakingtrueinfactand
notmadetosatisfyanypersonalagendaorvendettawould
seeminglybeprotected.(Emphasissupplied)

Megha

13 of 16

::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2015 14:29:31 :::

wp_4960_2014.doc

19.

PlacingrelianceonthisjudgmentlearnedseniorcounselMr.

rt

CheemahassubmittedthatCourtmaytakebroadviewofthematter

C
ou

and may consider that broadly speaking it is a fact that assassins,

particularly Nathuram Godse, were members of R.S.S. and therefore,
Petitionerhasnotcommittedanyoffence.Therewasnoulteriormotive
andtherefore,itcannotbesaidthathehadintentiontoharmreputation

ig
h

ofR.S.S.WithgreatrespecttothelearnedsingleJudgeImaynotagree
withthesaidobservations. Inmyopinionunlessitisestablishedthat

statementwasmadeingoodfaith,offencedefinedundersection499
andpunishableundersection500oftheIPCwouldbemadeout.The

ba
y

FirstExceptiontosection499runsasunder:
FirstException Imputationoftruthwhichpublicgood
requirestobemadeorpublished.Itisnotdefamation

om

toimputeanythingwhichistrueconcerninganyperson,if
it be for the publicgood that the imputation should be
made orpublished. Whetherornot it isforthe public
goodisaquestionoffact.

TheNinthExceptiontothesaidsectionrunsasunder:
NinthException Imputationmadeingoodfaithby
personforprotectionofhisorothersinterests.Itis
notdefamationtomakeanimputationonthecharacter
of another provided that the imputation be made in
good faith for the protection of the interests of the

Megha

14 of 16

::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2015 14:29:31 :::

wp_4960_2014.doc

person making it, or of any other persons, or for the

C
ou

20.

rt

publicgood.

Admittedly,thePetitionerwasaddressingapublicrallyfor

campaigninginfavouroftheI.N.C.IfthestatementmadeagainstR.S.S.
was made in the said public rally, particularly when R.S.S. is not a

ig
h

politicalpartyandwasnotcontestinganyelectionfromanywherein
India,thestatementprimafaciewouldindicatethatitwasintendedto
harmreputationofR.S.S.orthePetitioneratleastkneworhadreason

to believe that he would be harming reputation of R.S.S. If the

Petitioneriscoveredbyanyoftheexceptionsincludingthirdandninthit

ba
y

is for him to prove the same before the Trial Court. This is not an
exceptionalcasewherethisCourtshallexercisepowersundersection

om

482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings against the Petitioner. As

alreadyindicated,powersofsection482ofCr.P.C.arerequiredtobe

exercisedsparingly.TheHighCourt,innormalcourse,willnotdisturb
theorderofissuanceofprocessiftheavermentsmadeinthecomplaint
andtheenquirymadebytheMagistrateorthepoliceprimafaciemakes
outacaseforissuanceofprocess.

Megha

15 of 16

::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2015 14:29:31 :::

wp_4960_2014.doc

In my considered opinion there is no substance in the

22.

C
ou

petition.Petitiontherefore,deservestobedismissed.

rt

21.

Thepetitionisaccordinglydismissed. Interimrelief,ifany,

standsvacated.ThelearnedTrialJudgeshallnotgetinfluencedbyany

(JUDGE)

om

ba
y

ig
h

oftheobservationsmadebythisCourt.

Megha

16 of 16

::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2015 14:29:31 :::