Gujarat High Court
Rutvijaben Prashantbhai Dani vs State Of Gujarat on 28 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/4260/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 4260 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
RUTVIJABEN PRASHANTBHAI DANI & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
JUCKY LUCKY CHAN(8033) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR DIPAN DESAI(2481) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR.RONAK RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 28/04/2026
JUDGMENT
1. The present application is filed under Article 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India read with section 528 of
BNSS Act, 2023 for quashing and setting aside the
Criminal Case No.3788 of 2018 pending before the
learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad and for
the proceedings thereto whereby, learned Magistrate
has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under
section 500 of IPC.
Page 1 of 20
Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Thu May 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 01:08:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/4260/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026
undefined
2. The brief facts arising for the present proceedings are as
under:
2.1. The complainant namely Tejas Bhikhabai Patel, who is
an account manager of Popular Wheelers (I) Pvt. Ltd.
filed the complaint on behalf of the company and the
Director namely Jashwantbhai Ramjibhai Patel who
lodged a private complaint alleging the offences
punishable under section 182, 193, 500, 120B of IPC
against the present accused persons, out of which the
accused no.1 being Maganbhai Dolaji Damor expired and
accused no.2 and 3 are before this Court in the present
application.
2.2. As per the allegations made in the complaint vide FIR
bearing I-CR No.161 of 2015 dated 23.10.2015, lodged
with the Sabarkantha Police Station, for the offences
punishable under section 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471,
120B and 201 of IPC. The said FIR was lodged on behalf
of Popular Wheelers (I) Pvt. Ltd. alleging that one
Nirmal Singh, along with other office bearers of the
RTO, hatched conspiracy and got 10 vehicles registered
with RTO by producing false documents, despite the
original documents are in possession of the Company. It
Page 2 of 20
Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Thu May 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 01:08:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/4260/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026
undefined
is further alleged that the accused namely Nirmal Singh
got loans sanctioned from finance company by producing
forged receipt of the complainant company which was
purportedly issued towards down payment for the
purchase of vehicle and subsequently did not pay
amount of Rs.32,25,258/- thereby committed offence of
breach of trust and cheating. In the said FIR, no names
of RTO office bearers were mentioned. On 27.04.2016
Kalol Taluka Police Station has noticed one vehicle
without registration number and on making inquiry it
was found that vehicle has traveled 11000 kms without
getting registered with RTO. The concerned police
officer seized the said vehicle and informed the RTO
office to take appropriate steps. Upon inquiry, it was
found that retail invoices provided to the customer was
showing sale amount to the tune of Rs.7,21,728 whereas,
the paper submitted by the dealer i.e complainant
namely Popular Wheelers showed the sale price of
Rs.4,31,728. On 16.06.2016 the Motor Vehicle
Commissioner directed the concerned ARTO office to
lodge an FIR against the dealer for submitting false
invoices before the office of RTO by preparing two
Page 3 of 20
Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Thu May 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 01:08:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/4260/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026
undefined
invoices of the same vehicle. Subsequently, FIR was
culminated into charge-sheet and the same was
challenged before this Court by filling quashing petition
been Special Criminal Application No.9344/2016. As per
the allegations made in the complaint, the FIR which
was lodged before the Sabarmati Police Station, at the
instance of accused the no.2 and 3, who are the present
applicants, the said FIR came to be lodged under the
instructions of the Transport Commissioner. It is
submitted that prior to lodging of FIR, the complainant
i.e respondent no.2 has made representation about the
however, despite the same, I-CR No.255 of 2016 was
filed. This Court in the quashing proceedings has
quashed the said FIR vide order dated 31.08.2017. It is
contended in the complaint that as the present
applicants, who are accused no.2 and 3, were shown as
absconding accused, in the charge-sheet which is led in
the FIR filed by present applicant, to defend the
complainant the FIR being no.255 of 2016 came to be
lodged which was subsequently quashed on merits. It is
contended that the complainant was threatened and the
aforesaid complaint was forced to withdraw the
Page 4 of 20
Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Thu May 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 01:08:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/4260/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026
undefined
complaint however, as the complainant did not paid any
heed false FIR being I-CR No.255 of 2016 came to be
filed and subsequently, the publications were made in
the newspaper and electronic media stating that the
complainant Company namely Popular Wheelers (I)
Pvt.Ltd. is a thief (“chor chor”). Considering the
defamatory publication in the newspaper the impugned
complaint came to be lodged and the learned trial court
has issued process under section 500, which is the
subject matter of challenge before this Court.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr.Jucky Lucky Chan, for the
applicant, and learned advocate Mr.Dipan Desai for the
respondent no.2.
3.1. It is submitted by learned advocate Mr.Jucky Lucky
Chan that the complaint in the question is filed after an
inordinate and unexplained delay of 21 months. It is
submitted by learned advocate Mr.Jucky Lucky Chan
with oblique motive and with a view to falsely implicate
the applicant, the impugned complaint is filed therefore,
the same is required to be quashed as it would be abuse
of process of law. It is submitted by learned advocate
Mr.Jucky Lucky Chan by learned advocate Mr.Jucky
Page 5 of 20
Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Thu May 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 01:08:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/4260/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026
undefined
Lucky Chan that under section 202 of Cr.P.C learned
Magistrate ought to have seen that ingredients of
section 499 of IPC was satisfied. It is submitted by
learned advocate Mr.Jucky Lucky Chan that after
considering the fact the accused are residing outside the
area in which learned Magistrate exercised the
jurisdiction, learned Court ought to have inquired
whether the accused should be legally responsible for
the offence. It is submitted by learned advocate Mr.Jucky
Lucky Chan that merely recording the statement of
employee of the complainant company cannot be said to
be satisfaction of the Court before issuing the summons.
It is submitted by learned advocate Mr.Jucky Lucky
Chan that the obligation cast on the Magistrate to apply
his mind carefully and satisfied himself that allegation in
the complaint where considered along with the
statement recorded in the inquiry conducted would
prima facie construed the offence for which the
complaint is filed. It is submitted that the Magistrate has
not recorded any satisfaction except the reading of the
of newspaper and the statement of the witness for
arriving at the conclusion of prime facie case for issuing
Page 6 of 20
Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Thu May 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 01:08:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/4260/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026
undefined
the process. It is submitted that by reporting to the
Transport Commissioner for evading tax liability, the
applicant has discharged his duty however, the applicant
cannot be subjected to criminal prosecution for the act
which was done while discharging his duty. It is
submitted by learned advocate Mr.Jucky Lucky Chan
that the FIR, which was registered against the
complainant, was after holding due inquiry and on the
basis of documentary evidence. In that background the
registration of FIR cannot be said to be defamatory by
any stretch of imagination. It is submitted that even if
the registration of the FIR is found to be defamatory, for
the sake of argument, then also same was registered in
the performance of statutory duties cast upon the
applicant.
3.2. Drawing the contention of section 499 i.e the
definition of defamation, it is submitted by learned
advocate Mr.Jucky Lucky Chan that the news items of
registration of FIR came to be published and same was
telecasted. It is submitted that as the same is considered
to be imputation of truth which public would require to
be made or publish the same is fairly covered by
Page 7 of 20
Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Thu May 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 01:08:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/4260/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026
undefined
Exception 1, 4 and 9 of section 499 of IPC. It is
submitted by learned advocate Mr.Jucky Lucky Chan
that the impugned complaint is nothing but counter blast
to the action taken by the applicant for registration of
FIR for evading vehicle tax. It is submitted by learned
advocate Mr.Jucky Lucky Chan that the intention of
lodging the impugned complaint is to prevent other
officers of RTO from questioning the action of the
complainant in future. In that background the impugned
order passed by the learned Magistrate under section
202 of Cr.P.C in taking cognizance under section 500 of
IPC would be vexatious malafide and would amount to
abuse of process of law and in that background, the
same is required to be quashed by allowing the present
application.
3.3. Per Contra, learned advocate Mr.Dipan Desai,
appearing for the respondent, has submitted that on
bare reading of the complaint suggest that the
publication of the FIR in the newspaper and the
electronic media was made at the instance of present
applicant keeping grudge of the registration of FIR
being I-CR No.161 of 2015, before the Sabarkantha
Page 8 of 20
Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Thu May 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 01:08:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/4260/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026
undefined
Police Station, Ahmedabad City for the offence
punishable under section 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201
and 120B of IPC. It is submitted by learned advocate
Mr.Dipan Desai that original documents of 10 vehicles
which are in the possession of the complainant company
was registered with the RTO by producing false
documents as well as loan sanction from the finance
company by producing forged receipt of the complainant
company and ultimately amount of Rs.32,25,258/- was
not paid. It is submitted by learned advocate Mr.Dipan
Desai that on demanding the original documents with
the RTO authority same was not produced as the
vehicles were registered on the basis of forged
documents. As the name of the applicants were reflected
during the investigation of said case the false case is
filed. It is submitted by learned advocate Mr.Dipan Desai
that not only false case was filed applicant but was
published in the newspaper and electronic media
thereby causing great harm to the image of the company
and therefore, it is the case of direction defamation and
the learned trial court is required to be given sufficient
opportunity to exercise the rightful jurisdiction. In that
Page 9 of 20
Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Thu May 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 01:08:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/4260/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026
undefined
background, interference, at this stage, is uncalled for.
4. Having considered the submissions made by the learned
advocates for the respective parties it emerges from the
record that the present applicant where the accused of
the FIR registered with the Sabarmati Police Station for
the offence punishable under section 406, 409, 420, 465,
467, 468, 471, 120B of IPC. The applicants were granted
anticipatory bail by the learned Session Court thereafter,
the charge-sheet came to be filed against the applicant.
Subsequently, FIR being I-CR no.255 of 2016 was
registered at the Gandhinagar Sector 7 Police Station for
the offence punishable under section 406, 420, 465, 467,
468, 471 against Jashwantbhai Ramjibhai Patel who is
the Director of the present complainant company. The
said FIR was the subject matter of challenge in the
quashing petition being SCRA No.9344 of 2016 which
came to be allowed vide order dated 31.08.2017 and the
FIR was quashed. At the instance of the applicant the
publication was made in the newspaper with the heading
that Popular Wheelrs (I) Pvt.Ltd. is a thief (chor). The
applicant did not dispute that at his instance the
publication was made. In that background, the question
Page 10 of 20
Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Thu May 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 01:08:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/4260/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026
undefined
arising for consideration before this Court is that
whether summons issued by the learned Magistrate
under section 500 can be said to be erroneous?
5. At this stage, the reference of section 499 and 500 of
IPC is required to be made which is reproduced
hereinbelow:
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.
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 feelings 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 bePage 11 of 20
Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Thu May 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 01:08:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/SCR.A/4260/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026
undefined
believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a
state generally considered as disgraceful.
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 a 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 Fourth Exception. Publication of reports of
proceedings of Courts. It is not defamation to publish substantially
true report of the proceedings of a Court of Justice, or of the result
of any such proceedings.
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.
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 thePage 12 of 20
Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Thu May 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 01:08:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/SCR.A/4260/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026
undefined
public, or respecting respecting the character of the author so far as
his character appears in such performance, and no further.
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
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.
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 interests of the
person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good.
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.
500: Punishment for Defamation
Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple
imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with
fine, or with both.
6. The essential ingredients of defamation is that (1)
making or publishing any imputation concerning any
Page 13 of 20
Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Thu May 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 01:08:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/4260/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026
undefined
person (2) such imputation must have been made by
words either spoken or intended to be read or sign or by
visible representation and (3) the said imputation must
have been made with intention to harm or with
knowledge or having reasons to believe that it will harm
the reputation of the person concerned. In that
background, the intention to cause harm is the most
essential sine qua non of offence under section 499. It is
contended by learned advocate that as the publication
was made, imputation of truth which public would
required to make or publish and the same made in good
faith by person therefore, falls under the Exception 1, 4
and 9 carved out under Section 499 of IPC.
6.1. To test this argument, this Court has referred the
decision of the Apex Court in the case of M.N.Damani
Vs S.K.Sinha & Ors. reported in (2001) 5 SCC 156
wherein, it is held as under:
8. We have considered the rival submissions. The High Court
relying on para 7 of the judgment in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia
v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre exercising jurisdiction under
Section 482 quashed the proceedings. The learned Judge did not
bestow his attention to the facts of that case and the discussions
made in paras 6 and 8 of the said judgment. In that case the
complaint was filed for offences punishable under Sections 406 dPage 14 of 20
Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Thu May 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 01:08:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/SCR.A/4260/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026
undefined
and 407 read with Sections 34 and 120-B of the Penal Code. That
was a case where the property was trust property and one of the
trustees was a member of the family. The criminal proceedings
were quashed by the High Court in respect of two persons but
they were allowed to be continued against the rest. In para 6 of
the same judgment it is clearly stated that the Court considered
relevant documents including the trust deed as also the
correspondence e following the creation of the tenancy and
further took into consideration the natural relationship between
the settlor and the son and his wife and the fallout. Para 8 of the
judgment reads: (SCC pp. 695-96)
“8. Mr Jethmalani has submitted, as we have already noted,
that a case of breach of trust is both a civil wrong and a
criminal offence. There would be certain situations where it
would predominantly be a civil wrong and may or may not
amount to criminal offence. We are of the view that this case
is one of that type where, if at all, the facts may constitute a
civil wrong and the ingredients of the criminal offences are
wanting. Several decisions were cited before us in support of
the respective stands taken by counsel for the parties. It is
unnecessary to refer to them. In course of hearing of the
appeals, Dr Singhvi made it clear that Madhavi does not claim
any interest in the tenancy. In the setting of the matter we
are inclined to hold that the criminal case should not be
continued.”
Thus, the said judgment was on the facts of that case, having
regard to a various factors including the nature of offences,
relationship between the parties, the trust deed and
correspondence following the creation of tenancy. The High Court
has read para 7 in isolation. If para 7 is read carefully two
Page 15 of 20
Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Thu May 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 01:08:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/4260/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026
undefined
aspects are to be satisfied: (1) whether the uncontroverted
allegations, as made in the complaint, prima facie establish the
offence, and (2) whether it is expedient and in the interest of
justice to permit a prosecution to continue. b On a plain reading
of the order of the Magistrate issuing summons to the
respondents, keeping in view the allegations made in the
complaint and sworn statement of the appellant, it appears to us
that a prima facie case is made out at that stage. There are no
special features in the case to say that it is not expedient and not
in the interest of justice to permit the presecution to continue.
The learned Judge has failed to apply the tests indicated in para
7 c of the jüdgment on which he relied. The High Court could
not say at that stage that there was no reasonable prospect of
conviction resulting in the case after a trial. The Magistrate had
convicted the respondents for the offences under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act and the appeal filed by the
respondents was also dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge.
Assuming that the imputations made could be covered by
Exception 9 of Section 499 d IPC, several questions still remain to
be examined imputations were made in good faith, in what
circumstances, with what whether such intention, etc. All these
can be examined on the basis of evidence in the trial. The
decisions in Manjaya v. Sesha Shetti³, Sayed Ally v. King Emperor
and Anthoni Udayar v. Velusami Thevar cited by the learned
counsel for the respondents are the cases considered “after
conviction” having regard to the e facts of those cases and the
evidence placed on record. The decision in Baboo Gunnesh Dutt
Singh v. Mugneeram Chowdry arose out of a suit for damages for
defamation. These decisions, in our view, are of no help to the
respondents in examining whether the High Court was justified
Page 16 of 20
Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Thu May 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 01:08:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/4260/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026
undefined
and right in law in quashing the criminal proceedings, that too
exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.
9.Para 6 of the judgment in Sewakram case reads: (SCC pp.
214-15)
“6. The order recorded by the High Court quashing the
prosecution under Section 482 of the Code is wholly perverse
and has resulted in manifest miscarriage of justice. The High
Court has prejudged the whole issue without a trial of the
accused persons. The matter was at the stage of recording the
plea of the accused persons under Section 251 of the Code.
The requirements of Section 251 are still to be complied with.
The learned Magistrate had to ascertain whether the
respondent pleads guilty to the charge or demands to be tried.
The circumstances brought out clearly show that the
respondent was prima facie guilty of defamation punishable
under Section 500 of the Code unless he pleads one of the
exceptions to Section 499 of the Code.
It is for the respondent to plead that he was protected under
Ninth Exception to Section 499 of the Penal Code. The
burden, such as it is, to prove that his case would come
within that exception is on him. The ingredients of the Ninth
Exception are that (1) the imputation must be made in good
faith, and (2) the imputation must be for the protection of the
interests of the person making it or of any other person or for
the public good.”
Again, in para 18 of the judgment dealing with the aspect of
good faith in relation to the 9th Exception of Section 499, it is
stated that several questions arise for consideration if the 9th
Exception is to be applied to the facts of the case. Questions may
arise for consideration depending on the stand taken by the
Page 17 of 20
Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Thu May 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 01:08:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/4260/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026
undefined
accused at the trial and how the complainant proposes to
demolish the defence and that stage for deciding these questions
had not arrived at the stage of issuing process. It is stated: (SCC
p. 219)
“Answers to these questions at this stage, even before the plea
of the accused is recorded can only be a priori conclusions.
‘Good faith’ and ‘public good’ are, as we said, questions of fact
and matters for evidence. So, the trial must go on.”
10.Para 13 of the judgment in Shatrughna Prasad Sinha case
reads: d (SCC pp. 266-67)
“13. As regards the allegations made against the appellant in
the complaint filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist
Class, at Nasik, on a reading of the complaint we do not think
that we will be justified at this stage to quash that complaint.
It is not the province of this Court to appreciate at this stage
the evidence or scope of and meaning of the statement.
Certain allegations came to be made but whether these
allegations do constitute defamation of the Marwari community
as a business class and whether the appellant had intention to
cite as an instance of general feeling among the community
and whether the context in which the said statement came to
be made, as is sought to be argued by the learned Senior
Counsel for the appellant, are all matters to be considered by
the learned Magistrate at a later stage. At this stage, we
cannot embark upon weighing the evidence and come to any
conclusion to hold, whether or not the allegations made in the
complaint constitute an offence punishable under Section 500.
It is the settled legal position that a court has to read the
complaint as a whole and find out whether allegations
disclosed constitute an offence under Section 499 triable by
Page 18 of 20
Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Thu May 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 01:08:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/4260/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026
undefined
the Magistrate. The Magistrate prima facie came to the
conclusion that the allegations might come within the
definition of ‘defamation’ under Section 499 IPC and could be
taken cognizance of. But these are the facts to be established
at the trial. The case set up by the appellant are either
defences open to be taken or other steps of framing a charge
at the trial at whatever stage known to law. Prima facie we
think that at this stage it is not a case warranting quashing of
the complaint filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist
Class at Nasik. To that extent, the High Court was right in
refusing to quash the complaint under Section 500 IPC.”
11. Having regard to the facts of the instant case and in the light
of the decisions in Sewakram Sobhani v. R.K. Karanjia, Chief
Editor, Weekly Blitz¹ and Shatrughna Prasad Sinha v. Rajbhau
Surajmal Rathi we have no hesitation in holding that the High
Court committed a manifest error in quashing the criminal
proceedings exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.
12. Since the question of limitation was not raised before the
High Court by the respondents and further whether the offence is
a continuing one or not and whether the date of the commission
of offence could be taken as the one mentioned in the complaint
are not the matters to be examined here at this stage. In these
circumstances we have to reverse the impugned order of the High
Court and restore that of the Magistrate.
7. Applying the above ratio, in the instant case, the learned
Magistrate has issued summons considering the
allegations made in the complaint and sworn statement
of the applicant. Undoubtedly, it discloses the prima
Page 19 of 20
Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Thu May 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 01:08:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/4260/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026
undefined
facie case made out at that stage. It is for the learned
trial court to ascertain that whether imputations were
made in good faith in what circumstances, with what
intention and the said aspect can be examined on the
basis of the evidence, during the course of trial. For
exercising the power under section 528 BNS, 2023 two
aspects are to be satisfied, one is whether
uncontroverted allegations as made in the complaint
prima facie establish the offence, two whether it is
expedient and in the interest of justice to permit the
prosecution to continue. The uncontroverted allegations
made in the complaint with regard to publication in the
news items, with regard to FIR which was subsequently
quashed, with heading that complainant company is thief
would be certainly considered as defamatory publication
and in that background, at this stage, no interference is
required. So far as the contention with regard to
publication in good faith is concerned, it is open for the
applicant to raise before the learned trial court.
8. Resultantly, this application being devoid of merits, is
rejected.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
ARCHANA S. PILLAI
Page 20 of 20
Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Thu May 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 01:08:58 IST 2026
