# Rajesh Churiwala v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 8 ILRA 662
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-07-14
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 10431 of 2021
- **Bench:** Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajesh-churiwala-v-state-of-u-p-anr-47287
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Law-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973-Section
482
-
Indian
Penal Code,1860-Section 500-imputation
made for public good would be a question
of fact, can be decided during trial only
and the benefit of the first exception to
section 499 cannot be claimed at the
stage of issuance of summons.(Para 1 to
18)

B. It is well settled that at the stage of
issuing process the Magistrate is mainly
concerned with the allegations made in
the complaint or the evidence led in
support of the same and he is only to be
prima facie satisfied whether there are
sufficient grounds for proceedings against
the accused. At this stage, there is no
requirement to enter into the detailed
factual aspects or on the merits or
demerits of the case.(Para 14)

The application is dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:
8 All. Rajesh Churiwala Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
663

## Text

662 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the electricity as alleged by the Electricity
Department.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for
the applicant that since offence in question is
compoundable and the applicant is ready to
settle the matter, some time may be granted
to him for the said purpose and to approach
the authority concerned under Section 152 of
the Electricity Act.

5. Sri Narendra Kumar Tiwari, learned
counsel for the Electricity Department has no
objection if the offence is compounded under
Section 152 of the Electricity Act. Learned
AGA who represents opposite party no.1
State of U.P. has also no objection.

6. Having regard to the facts and
circumstances of case and having considered
the submissions made by learned counsel for
parties and keeping in view the willingness
shown by learned counsel for applicant, in
my view, no useful purpose would be served
by keeping this application pending. Hence,
applicant is directed to move an application
under the relevant provisions of Electricity
Act before the concerned authority within
one month from today. If such application
along with certified copy of this order is
moved by applicant, same shall be considered
and decided expeditiously, preferably within
a period of two months from the date of
production of same in accordance with law
after hearing the parties concerned.

7. For a period of three months or till
the disposal of said application, whichever is
earlier, no coercive action shall be taken
against applicant in the aforesaid case.

8. In case of default on the part of
applicant, interim protection granted to
applicant shall automatically come to an
end.

9. With the aforesaid observations,
this application stands finally disposed of.
----------
(2021)08ILR A662
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 10431 of 2021

Rajesh Churiwala ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Brijrndra Prasad Shukla

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

A.
Criminal
Law-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973-Section
482
-
Indian
Penal Code,1860-Section 500-imputation
made for public good would be a question
of fact, can be decided during trial only
and the benefit of the first exception to
section 499 cannot be claimed at the
stage of issuance of summons.(Para 1 to
18)

B. It is well settled that at the stage of
issuing process the Magistrate is mainly
concerned with the allegations made in
the complaint or the evidence led in
support of the same and he is only to be
prima facie satisfied whether there are
sufficient grounds for proceedings against
the accused. At this stage, there is no
requirement to enter into the detailed
factual aspects or on the merits or
demerits of the case.(Para 14)

The application is dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:
8 All. Rajesh Churiwala Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
663
1. Chaman Lal Vs St of Punj.(1970) 1 SCC 590

2. Subramanian Swamy Vs U.O.I. (2016) 7 SCC
221

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra
Kumar Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Sri Birendra Prasad
Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant
and Ms. Sushma Soni, learned Additional
Government Advocate appearing for the
State-opposite party.

2. The present application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed
seeking to quash the proceedings of
Complaint Case No.10 of 2019 (Mohan
Lal Saravagi Vs. Rajesh Churiwala),
under Section 500 I.P.C., pending before
the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Court No.3, Varanasi, within a stipulated
time period.

3. Counsel for the applicant has also
sought
to
assail
the
order
dated
18.01.2020 in terms of which the
applicant has been summoned.

4. The only contention which is
sought to be canvassed to challenge the
proceedings is that the offence under
Section 499 I.P.C. is not made out
inasmuch as the case is covered under the
first exception to the section which
provides that if the imputation is made
for public good, the same would not
amount to defamation.

5. Learned AGA points out that the
question as to whether an imputation is made
for public good or not would be a question of
fact which is to be seen in the trial and the
same cannot be taken as a ground to seek
quashing of the proceedings.

6. In order to appreciate the rival
contentions,
the
relevant
statutory
provisions relating to defamation under
Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code,
18601 would be required to be referred to.
Section 499 reads as follows :-

"499. Defamation--Whoever, by
words either spoken or intended to be read,
or by signs or by visible representations,
makes
or
publishes
any
imputation
concerning any person intending to harm,
or knowing or having reason to believe that
such imputation will harm, the reputation
of such person, is said, except in the cases
hereinafter
expected,
to
defame
that
person."

7. The first exception to Section 499,
which is also relevant for the purpose of the
controversy at hand, is being extracted
below:

"First Exception- Imputation of
truth which public good requires to be
made or published.- It is not defamation
to
impute
anything
which
is
true
concerning any person, if it be for the
public good that the imputation should be
made or published. Whether or not it is for
the public good is a question of fact."

8. Section 499 of the Penal Code
states as to when an act of imputation
amounts to defamation. It contains four
explanations and ten exceptions and section
500 prescribes punishment in such cases.
The ten exceptions to Section 499 state the
instances in which an imputation, prima
facie defamatory, may be excused. The first
exception corresponds to the defence which
may be set up by taking the plea of the
imputation being true and for public good.
This exception recognizes the publication
of truth as a sufficient justification, if it is
664 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
made for the public good. Truth by itself
would be no justification in criminal law,
unless it is proved that its publication was
for the public good.

9. The plea of defence of public good,
under the first exception to Section 499,
fell for consideration in Chaman Lal Vs.
State of Punjab2, and it was held that
public good is a question of fact and the
onus of proving the two ingredients under
the first exception i.e. the imputation is true
and the publication is for public good, is on
the accused. It was stated thus:

"8. Public good is a question of
fact. Good faith has also to be established
as a fact.

xxx

15. In order to come within the
First Exception to section 499 of the Indian
Penal Code it has to be established that
what has been imputed concerning the
respondent is true and the publication of the
imputation is for the public good. The onus
of proving these two ingredients, namely,
truth of the imputation and the publication
of the imputation for the public good is on
the appellant..."

10. The provisions relating to
defamation under Section 499 were again
considered in the case of Subramanian
Swamy Vs. Union of India3, and in the
context of the plea for justifying the
imputation by referring to
the first
exception, it was observed as follows:-

"179. Having dealt with the four
Explanations, presently, we may analyse
the Exceptions and note certain authorities
with regard to the Exceptions. It is solely
for the purpose of appreciating how the
Court has appreciated and applied them.
The First Exception stipulates that it is not
defamation to impute anything which is
true concerning any person, if it be for the
public good that the imputation should be
made or published. "Public good" has to be
treated to be a fact. In Chaman Lal v. State
of Punjab : (1970) 1 SCC 590, the Court
has held that in order to come within the
First Exception to Section 499 of the Indian
Penal Code it has to be established that
what has been imputed concerning the
Respondent is true and the publication of
the imputation is for the public good. The
onus of proving these two ingredients,
namely, truth of the imputation and the
publication of the imputation for the public
good, is on the accused.

180. It is submitted by Dr.
Dhawan, learned senior Counsel for the
Petitioners that if the imputation is not true,
the matter would be different. But as the
Exception postulates that imputation even
if true, if it is not to further public good
then it will not be defamation, is absolutely
irrational and does not stand to reason. It is
urged that truth is the basic foundation of
justice, but this Exception does not
recognize truth as a defence and, therefore,
it deserves to be struck down.

xxx

191...It is submitted that the
Exceptions make the offence more rigorous
and thereby making the concept of criminal
defamation extremely unreasonable. The
criticism advanced pertain to truth being
not a defence, and unnecessary stress on
'public good'. The counter argument is that
if a truthful statement is not made for any
kind of public good but only to malign a
person, it is a correct principle in law that
the statement or writing can amount to
8 All. Rajesh Churiwala Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
665
defamation. Dr. Singhvi, learned senior
Counsel for some of the Respondents has
given certain examples. The examples
pertain to an imputation that a person is an
alcoholic; an imputation that two family
members are involved in consensual incest;
an imputation that a person is impotent; a
statement is made in public that a particular
person suffers from AIDS; an imputation
that a person is a victim of rape; and an
imputation that the child of a married
couple is not fathered by the husband but
born out of an affair with another man. We
have set out the examples cited by the
learned senior Counsel only to show that
there can be occasions or situations where
truth may not be sole defence. And that is
why the provision has given emphasis on
public good. Needless to say, what is public
good is a question of fact depending on the
facts and circumstances of the case. "

11. Defamation i.e. an injury to a
person's reputation, is both a crime and a
civil wrong. In a civil action for defamation
in tort, truth is a defence, but in a criminal
action, the accused would be required to
prove both the truth of the matter and also
that its publication was for public good and
no amount of truth would justify a
defamatory act unless its publication is
proved to have been made for public good.
The defence of truth is not satisfied merely
by proving that the publisher honestly
believed the statement to be true, he must
prove that the statement was in fact true.

12. Truth by itself, would be not a
defence
to
an
action
for
criminal
defamation if other ingredients are present,
unless it can be shown that imputation in
question besides being truthful was made
for the public good. As to what is public
good would be a question of fact depending
upon the facts and circumstances of the
case and the onus of proving two
ingredients, namely, truth of the imputation
and the publication of the imputation for
the public good, would be on the accused.

13. The question whether or not the
imputation was made for public good
would therefore be a question of fact which
would be required to be proved by the
accused to seek the benefit of the first
exception to Section 499. The defence in
this regard being a question of fact, can be
decided during trial only and the benefit of
the first exception cannot be claimed at the
stage of issuance of summons.

14. It is well settled that at the stage
of issuing process the Magistrate is mainly
concerned with the allegations made in the
complaint or the evidence led in support of
the same and he is only to be prima facie
satisfied whether there are sufficient
grounds for proceeding against the accused.
At this stage, there is no requirement to
enter into the detailed factual aspects or on
the merits or demerits of the case.

15. In the present case the applicant
has sought to raise a challenge to the order
dated 18.01.2020 in terms of which he has
been summoned. At this stage, the
Magistrate is required only to be prima
facie satisfied that there are sufficient
grounds for proceeding against the accused
and the defence of the accused is to be seen
only during the course of the trial. The
protection of the first exception to Section
499 of the Penal Code, which is being
relied upon on behalf of the applicant, is
not to be seen at this stage.

16. Learned counsel for the applicant
does not dispute the aforesaid legal position
and states that the applicant would appear
before the court below, submit to its
666 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
jurisdiction and place his defence during
the trial.

17. Having regard to the aforesaid,
this Court is not inclined to entertain the
present application in exercise of its
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C.

18.

The
application
stands
accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2021)08ILR A666
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 11315 of 2021

Dharmraj & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Sudhir Kumar Agarwal, Sri Naveen
Kumar

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

A.
Criminal
Law-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 482 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Section 323,325,504quashing of summoning order-impugned
summoning order passed in mechanical
manner through a printed order without
applying
judicial
mind
and
without
considering the material-cognizance order
cannot be legally sustained, as it does not
stand the test of the law laid down by the
Apex Court.(Para 1 to 25)

B. Judicial orders can not be allowed to be
passed in a mechanical manner either by
filling in blank on a printed proforma or
by affixing a ready made seal etc. of the
order on a plain paper. such tendency
must
be
deprecated
and
cannot
be
allowed to perpetuate. this reflects not
only lack of application of mind to the
facts of the case but is also against the
settled judicial norms.(Para 12 to 22)

The application is allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Dilawar Vs St. of Har.(2018) 16 SCC 521

2. Menka Gandhi Vs U.O.I .(1978) AIR SC 597

3. Hussainara Khatoon (I) Vs St. of Bih.(1980) 1
SCC 81

4. Abdul Rehman Antulay Vs R.S. Nayak(1992)
1 SCC 225

5. Ramchandra Rao Vs St. of Karn.(2002) 4 SCC
578

6. H.N. Rishbud Vs St. of Delhi (1955) AIR SC
196

7. Basaruddin & Ors Vs St. of U.P & ors. (2011)
1 JIC 335 (AII) (LB)

8. Bhushan Kumar & Anr. Vs St. (NCT of Delhi)
& Anr.(2012) AIR SC 1747

9. Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs CBI (2015) AIR SC 923

10. Darshan Singh Ram Kishan Vs St. of Mah.
(1971) 2 SCC 654

11. Ankit Vs St. of U.P. & anr.

12. Megh Nath Guptas & anr.Vs St. of U.P &
anr. (2008) 62 ACC 826

13. Deputy Chief Controller Import and Export
Vs Roshan Lal Agarwal , (2003) 4 ACC 686 SC

14. UP Pollution Control Board Vs Mohan Meakins
(2000) 2 JIC 159 SC: AIR 2000 SC 1456

15. Kanti Bhadra Vs St. of W.B. (2000) 1 JIC
751 (SC): 2000 (40) ACC 441 SC