Case of defamtion can be filed if the perosn made impuation to the police damaging hsi reputation
Raj
(Querist) 28 June 2013
This query is : Resolved
Sir,
I filed the case of DP Act against my brother father in law who has falsely implicated me under 498-A..and application under 156(3) was moved and the police has called the father in law and made false sub msisions which attacks my character..and I go the copy of his statement from the polcie through RTI
Please advise me whether its fit case to move an pplication under section 500 of IPC for giving wrong remarks against me
Thyagarajan
(Expert) 28 June 2013
First write to your brother's father-in-law to regret for his statement made to police and withdraw the same. You can also advise him if he does not do so you will file a case in Magistrate court for defamation under under sec 499&500 IPC and also will claim damages
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 29 June 2013
Send a notice as advised and if any response received, Contact a local lawyer for further course of action.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 29 June 2013
It shall be better to first get out of the present case filed against you and thereafter you should take the desired action.
Raj
(Querist) 29 June 2013
In fact I have filed the case under section 3 of D.P Act and case was send to P.S for ATR and police has taken his reply in which such remarks has been made
Nadeem Qureshi
(Expert) 02 July 2013
Dear Raj
first of all read the section 499 of IPC with explanations, because you have not mentioned facts in your query regarding the allegations against you.
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 excepted, to defame that person. Explanation 1.- It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the fellings of his family or other near relatives. Explanation 2.- It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such. Explanation 3.- An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation. Explanation 4.- No imputation is said to harm a person' s reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a lothsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful. Illustrations
(a) A says-" Z is an honest man; he never stole B' s watch", intending to cause it to be believed that Z did steal B' s watch. This is defamation, unless it fall within one of the exceptions.
(b) A is asked who stole B' s watch. A points to Z, intending to cause it to be believed that Z stole B' s watch. This is defamation, unless it fall within one of the exceptions.
(c) A draws a picture of Z running away with B' s watch, intending it to be believed that Z stole B' s watch. This is defamation, unless it fall within one of the exceptions. 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.
Second Exception.- Public conduct of public servants.- It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of a public servant in the discharge of his public functions, or respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further. Third Exception.- Conduct of any person touching any public question.- It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of any person touching any public question, and respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further. Illustration It is not defamation in A to express in good faith any opinion whatever resepting Z' s conduct in petitioning Government on a public question, in signing a requisition for a meeting on a public question, in presiding or attending at such meeting, in forming or joining any society which invites the public support, in voting or canvassing for a particular candidate for any situation in the efficient discharge of the duties of which the public is interested. Fourth Exception.- Publication of reports of proceedings of courts- It is not defamation to publish a substantially true report of the proceedings of a Court of Justice, or of the result of any such proceedings. Explanation.- A Justice of the Peace or other officer holding an enquiry in open Court preliminary to a trial in a Court of Justice, is a Court within the meaning of the above section. Fifth Exception.- Merits of case decided in Court or conduct of witnesses and others concerned. It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the merits of any case, civil or criminal, which has been decided by a Court of Justice, or respecting the conduct of any person as a party, witness or agent, in any such case, or respecting the character of such person, as far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further. Illustrations
(a) A says-" I think Z' s evidence on that trial is so contradictory that he must be stupid or dishonest." A is within this exception if he says this in good faith, inasmuch as the opinion which he expresses respects Z' s character as it appears in Z' s conduct as a witness, and no farther.
(b) But if A says-" I do not believe what Z asserted at that trial because I know him to be a man without veracity"; A is not within this exception, inasmuch as the opinion which expresses of Z' s character, is an opinion not founded on Z' s conduct as a witness. Sixth Exception.- Merits of public performance.- It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion respecting the merits of any performance which its author has submitted to the judgment of the public, or respecting the character of the author so far as his character appears in such performance, and no farther. Explanation.- A performance may be submitted to the judgment of the public expressly or by acts on the part of the author which imply such submission to the judgment of the public. Illustrations
(a) A person who publishes a book, submits that book to the judgment of the public.
(b) A person who makes a speech in public, submits that speech to the judgment of the public.
(c) An actor or singer who appears on a public stage, submits his acting or singing to the judgment of the public.
(d) A says of a book published by Z-" Z' s book is foolish; Z must be a weak man. Z' s book is indecent; Z must be a man of impure mind." A is within the exception, if he says this in good faith, inasmuch as the opinion which he expresses of Z respects Z' s character only so far as it appears in Z' s book, and no further.
(e) But if A says-" I am not surprised that Z' s book is foolish and indecent, for he is a weak man and a libertine." A is not within this exception, inasmuch as the opinion which he expresses of Z' s character is an opinion not founded on Z' s book. Seventh Exception.- Censure passed in good faith by person having lawful authority over another.- It is not defamation in a person having over another any authority, either conferred by law or arising out of a lawful contract made with that other, to pass in good faith any censure on the conduct of that other in matters to which such lawful authority relates. Illustration A Judge censuring in good faith the conduct of a witness, or of an officer of the Court; a head of a department censuring in good faith those who are under his orders; a parent censuring in good faith a child in the presence of other children; a schoolmaster, whose authority is derived from a parent, censuring in good faith a pupil in the presence of other pupils; a master censuring a servant in good faith for remissness in service; a banker censuring in good faith the cashier of his bank for the conduct of such cashier as such cashier- are within this exception. Eighth Exception.- Accusation preferred in good faith to authorised person.- 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. Illustration If A in good faith accuses Z before a Magistrate; if A in good faith complains of the conduct of Z, a servant, to Z' s master; if A in good faith complains of the conduct of Z, a child, to Z' s father- A is within this exception. Ninth Exception.- Imputation made in good faith by person for protection of his or other' s interests.- It is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another provided that the imputation be made in good faith for the protection of the interest of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good. Illustrations
(a) A, a shopkeeper, says to B, who manages his business-" Sell nothing to Z unless he pays you ready money, for I have no opinion of his honesty." A is within the exception, if he has made this imputation on Z in good faith for the protection of his own interests.
(b) A, a Magistrate, in making a report to his own superior officer, casts an imputation on the character of Z. Here, if the imputation is made in good faith, and for the public good, A is within the exception. Tenth Exception.- Caution intended for good of person to whom conveyed or for public good.- It is not defamation to convey a caution, in good faith, to one person against another, provided that such caution be intended for the good of the person to whom it is conveyed, or of some person in whom that person is interested, or for the public good.
Nadeem Qureshi
(Expert) 02 July 2013
You should read this section too.
7. Cognizance of offences –
1(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),-
(a) No court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence under this Act.
(b) No court shall take cognizance of an offence under this Act except upon-
(i) Its own knowledge or a police report of the facts which constitute such offence, or
(ii) A complaint by the person aggrieved by the offence or a parent or other relative of such person, or by nay recognized welfare institution or organisation.
(c) It shall be lawful for a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class to pass any sentence authorised by this Act on any person convicted of an offence under this Act.
Explanation – For the purpose of this sub section, “recognized welfare institution or organisation” means a social welfare institution or organisation recognized in this behalf by the Central or State Government.
(2) Nothing in Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) shall apply to any offence punishable under this Act.
2(3)Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, a statement made by the person aggrieved by the offence shall not subject such person to a prosecution under this Act.]
COMMENTS
(i) The point of time at which the legality of cognizance is to be judged is the time when cognizance is actually taken; M.L. Sethi v. R.P. Kapur, AIR 1967 SC 528.
(ii) The expression ‘to take cognizance’ has not been defined in this Act nor in the Criminal Procedure Code The word ‘Cognizance’ is however, used in the Code to indicate the point when the Magistrate takes judicial notice of an offence. It is a word of indefinite import and is perhaps not always used in exactly the same sense; Darshan Singh v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1971 SC 2372.
(iii) Taking cognizance is a judicial action taken with a view eventually to prosecution and preliminary to the commencement of the inquiry or trail; Food Inspector v. Laxmi Narayan, 1969 Cut LT 863.
(iv) If a Magistrate has no jurisdiction to try an offence, he is not barred from taking cognizance of the offence; Jaddu v. State, AIR 1952 All 873.
Feel Free to Call
Nadeem Qureshi (Advocate)
Chember No. D-720, Lawyers Chembers,
Karkardooma Court, Delhi
email : nadeemqureshi1@gmail.com
web: nadeemqureshi498a.webs.com
Blog: http://nadeemqureshi1.wordpress.com/
Mob: +91 9953809956
+91 8802305262
DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g
(Expert) 02 July 2013
Nadeem qureshi I think some body has posted about your habit of giving your own publicity.
I feel it is great reflection on the expertise of all other experts who put their valuable time without any expectation.
R.K Nanda
(Expert) 02 July 2013
nothing to add.
