Whether a letter written by the wife to husband’s employer informing of Case under 498A amounts to criminal defamation? – Calcutta High Court Decides

The matrimonial disputes often have issues flaring to harming each other’s reputation. Offence of defamation defined under section 499 of the Indian Penal Code is the consequential legal charge in many matrimonial disputes. Defamation can be by visual, oral, or by way of written representation accompanied by an intention or knowledge or a reason to believe that such representation shall harm the reputation of the person. If the above definition is satisfied in an unqualified manner before law, ruling out exceptions, it qualifies for the defamation. The question whether the facts of the case amounts to defamation arose for consideration out of a matrimonial dispute before the Calcutta High Court in Malancha Mohinta vs. Dipak Mohinta CRRR 1114 of 2010. In this case, it was to be decided whether a letter written by the wife to the husband’s employer, informing him of the complaint under section 498A of the IPC, amounts to defamation or not. The Court held that a letter written by a wife, in good faith, to the husband’s employer informing him of the 498A case pending against the husband does not amount to criminal defamation.

Wife’s act fall within Exception of the Offence

The punishment for an offence under defamation is provided under the section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 with simple imprisonment of 2 years with or without fine or both. It is compoundable and non-cognizable offence and is subject to bail. However, section 499 has several exceptions to the law.  The important one impacting the decision was the fifth, the eighth and the nineth exception deciding the case in favor of wife.

The case of the wife rested on the premise that the complaint was filed in good faith. The court however, noticed that there was no embellishment of facts in the case, no coercive action sought against the husband. She should have her right to ventilate her grievance as her human dignity was at peril. Considering the oppressive conditions suffered by the petitioner, it is obvious that taking recourse to writing letter to official heads of the respondent was right and it amounts to recourse to the law of the land.

• Comment on the case: The letter mentioning the arrest and subsequent release of the respondent on bail fell within the scope of the fifth exception to section 499 of the IPC which allows 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 further. As the letter was a representation regarding the merits of the case in good faith, which the court of justice decides in respect to the conduct of the person. Further, the subsequent acquittal of the respondent on the benefit of doubt does not negate the incident of his arrest and release on bail. In Anthoni Udayar v. Velusami Thevar AIR 1948 Mad 469, Rajamannar J. as his Lordship then was, ruled thus: There cannot be any rule of thumb to determine case whether an imputation is made in good faith or not. Good faith is relative to a great extent and must be determined by the circumstances under which the imputation was made, the social status and level of education of the person making the imputation and his reasoning capacity. That the allegations contained in the statements made by the petitioner are not established to be true is not tantamount to an absence of good faith. Imputations must be so reckless that good faith must be deemed to be totally absent.

• Complaint to Person having lawful Authority: The eighth exception to section 499 of the IPC concerns itself with the accusation against any person presented before a person having lawful authority over that other person. In the instant case, the petitioner wrote the letter to the respondent’s employer who had lawful authority over the respondent, and therefore, the eighth exception to section 499 of the IPC is applicable. The ninth exception to section 499 of the IPC covers the case of representations made in good faith and the petitioner wrote the letter in good faith. Therefore, the letter is excepted by the ninth exception too.
• Good faith: The 9th exception of section 499 of IPC ultimately lays emphasis upon statement made in good faith.

Therefore, the ingredients of offence of defamation are not attracted by the contents of the letter as they are within the ambit of the exceptions laid down under section 499 of IPC. The High Court went on to say: “…the letter in question was a statement of fact instead of any imputation to harm the reputation of the opposite party.”

The law regarding Good faith

Under Section 52 of the Indian Penal Code ‘good faith‘ is defined as anything done with due care and attention. Although under the General Clauses Act, a thing is deemed to be done in ‘good faith” if it is in fact done honestly, whether it is done negligently or not. But the definition given under Section 52 of the Indian Penal Code would govern the cases arising under the Indian Penal Code. 

Under Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, the burden of proving that the case of the accused comes within any of the general exceptions in the Indian Penal Code is upon him. It is the fundamental doctrine of criminal law relating to onus of proof that the prosecution must establish all the ingredients of the offence with which the accused was charged, by independent evidence for convicting the accused, irrespective of the fact whether the accused is able to adduce evidence bringing his case within any one of the exceptions, or not. The nature and the extent of the onus of proof that lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused is absolute and it stands on a different footing from the kind and nature of proof expected of the accused person to bring his case within any one of the exceptions pleaded by him. The prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, whereas it is enough for the accused to bring his case within any one of the exceptional if he succeeds in proving a preponderance of probability.

Section 468 CrPC: Plea of Limitation in Matrimonial Dispute

This case also raised the issue of bar of limitation. In the case of Vanka Radhamonohori V. Vanka Venkata Reddy and others; (1993) 3 Supreme Court Case 4. In the said case the question of Bar of limitation in taking cognizance of offence was raised under section 468 of Cr. P.C. Hon’ble Apex Court therein held that allegation regarding “Matrimonial Offences relating to cruelty of husband on wife are in the nature of the continuing offences to which bar of section 468 cannot be applied in the interest of justice”. The fact situation of the case was that the wife leaving her matrimonial house in 1985 filed a complaint in 1990 alleging maltreatment, torture, and harassment for dowry by her husband and mother-in-law and remarriage by the husband in 1990. In that case cognizance of offence under section 498A and 494 IPC (Offence of remarriage during life time of a wife) was taken by the Magistrate. A petition under section 482 was filed by the husband for quashing the criminal proceeding against him. In that proceeding the High Court, took a view that cognizance of offence under section 498A of IPC was barred under section 468 and quash the entire proceeding on that ground under section 482.

The matter went up before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in the Appeal against the order passed by the High Court, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “in view of the allegation regarding the second marriage by the respondent during continuance of the first marriage, prima facie an offence under section 494 IPC was disclosed in the complaint and there was no question of section 468 of Cr.P.C being applicable to an offence under section 494 of IPC as the punishment is for a term extending up to seven years. But nothing has been said by the High Court in respect of the offence under section 494 IPC. Even in respect of the allegation regarding the offence under section 498-A IPC, the attention of the High Court was not drawn to section 473 Cr. P.C, which provides for extension of period of limitation but with delay of extension. In view of the allegations that the complainant was being subjected to cruelty by the respondent, the High Court should have held that it was in the interest of justice to take cognizance even of the offence under section 498A IPC ignoring the bar under section 468 IPC. Therefore, the order of the High Court has to be set aside.”

In the case of Naresh Chand Jain Vs. State of U.P and others; 1991 Cri.L.J. 1888 (All), it was further held that the starting point of limitation for filing a complaint for defamation is the date of publication and within three years thereof.

The dimension of matrimonial dispute enlarges to criminal law when marriage is not in good terms. The role of the court in matrimonial dispute is not to just to investigate the merit of the case but at times work for a possible solution to keep the harmony of a relationship intact.  The judgment is a suitable precedent of the act of good faith in matrimonial dispute and consequent disqualification of the accused under the offence of defamation. The court in this case observed the compassion and good sense prevailed over the petitioner even after alleged mis-treatments meted out to her, she did not hesitate to file a joint petition along with her husband and his elder brother, praying for withdrawing the case. The time lapse for filing defamation suit, qualifications under exceptions do not qualify for ground for defamation in this case. The court reiterated an important observation that matrimonial offense is a continued offence and therefore plea of limitation cannot be investigated objectively.