The Bombay High Court on last Thursday dismissed a plea filed by actor Kangana Ranaut that sought quashing of the complaint registered against her by lyricist Javed Akhtar in a defamation case. Defamation according to section 499 of IPC is defined as, 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. Kangana Ranaut, the actress had filed a plea in the Bombay High Court challenging the proceeding initiated by the 10th Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court at Andheri in Mumbai against her.
The bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere of Bombay High Court went through the court records and noted that the magistrate had examined Javed Akhtar on oath on December 3, 2020. Thereafter, he sent the complaint for investigation to the Senior Police Inspector of the concerned police station. According to rules, there are three options available to the magistrate under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). He can either inquire into the case himself or direct the police for investigation or give direction to investigate to such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In Akhtar’s case, the magistrate had exercised his discretion by adverting to the second option, that is, by directing an investigation to be made by the Senior Police Inspector of the Juhu Police Station, Justice Mohite Dere said.
The police, after investigation – after recording the statements of several witnesses – has submitted its report to the magistrate by observing that a cognisable offence is disclosed against Ranaut, the high court said. Akhtar had filed a defamation suit against Kangana Ranaut citing a televised interview of the actor in 2020.
Although Kangana Ranaut’s lawyer Rizwan Siddiquee argued that the examination of witnesses was essential. He said Kangana Ranaut should have got an opportunity to cross-examine the said witnesses. To this, the court replied that the question of cross-examining the witnesses did not arise at the stage of Section 200 nor under Section 202 as it was the pre-cognisance stage. Section 202 of CrPC has twin role to examine the allegations made in the complaint to prevent an accused from facing a friviolus trial and also see about existence of additional evidence against the accused.
The high court said it was evident from perusal of Section 200 that a magistrate taking cognisance of an offence on a complaint, should examine upon oath, the complainant and the witnesses present, if any. Before Kangana Ranaut approached the Bombay High Court, she had filed a plea in the Dindoshi sessions court. In April this year, the sessions court, too, had dismissed Kangana’s plea.
In India, defamation is both civil and criminal offence. The remedy for civil defamation is covered under the Law of Torts. In a civil defamation case, a person who is defamed can move either High Court or subordinate courts and seek damages in the form of monetary compensation from the accused. Also, under sections 499 and 500 of the IPC, a person guilty of criminal defamation can be sent to jail for two years.
Image: Bollywood Hungama
