Sanjay Upadhya vs Anand Dubey

2024 INSC 66 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 3180 of 2020)

SANJAY UPADHYA ….APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

ANAND DUBEY ….RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

Mehta, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The instant appeal has been preferred by the accused

appellant who is facing prosecution for the offence punishable

under Section 500 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 in a complaint filed

by the respondent-complainant Anand Dubey in the Court of

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hoshangabad. The complaint was Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Narendra Prasad Date: 2024.01.29

founded on an allegation that the appellant who is the registered 18:29:37 IST Reason:

1

Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No(s). 3180 of 2020

owner of a Daily newspaper named ‘Sunday Blast’ having its

registered office at Malviya Hospital, Kothi Bazar, Hoshangabad

Tehsil and District Hoshangabad, allowed a news article to be

published in the edition dated 24th February, 2013 bearing a title

“Advocate ne pan masala vyavasayi par karaya jhuta mamla darj”.

3. The respondent-complainant filed the subject complaint in

the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hoshangabad alleging

that the appellant had allowed the said news article to be

published in his newspaper without ascertaining the true facts and

that such publication brought down the reputation of the

respondent-complainant in the eyes of the public at large and

thus, the accused appellant was liable to be prosecuted for

criminal defamation punishable under Section 500 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860.

4. The learned Magistrate, after considering the averments

made in the complaint and the statement of witnesses examined

under Sections 200 and 202 of Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973(hereinafter being referred to as ‘CrPC’) rejected the same vide

order dated 12th June, 2017.

5. The respondent-complainant preferred a revision against the

order dated 12th June, 2017, which came to be allowed by the 2 Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No(s). 3180 of 2020

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad vide order dated

15th October, 2018 and the order passed by the learned Magistrate

was reversed. The accused appellant herein challenged the said

order by filing MCRC No. 44473 of 2018 before the High Court of

Madhya Pradesh which dismissed the same vide order dated 29th

January, 2020. The order dated 29th January, 2020 and all further

proceedings of the complaint are assailed in the present appeal.

6. No one has appeared to contest the appeal on behalf of the

respondent-complainant despite service.

7. We have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of

the appellant and have gone through the material placed on record

including the orders passed by the Courts below as well as the

High Court.

8. Having considered the entirety of the material available on

record, we find that the order dated 12th June, 2017 passed by the

learned Magistrate First Class, Hoshangabad rejecting the

complaint of the respondent-complainant is a well-reasoned order.

The learned Magistrate in its order referred to the Fundamental

Right of Freedom of Speech and Expression enshrined under

Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and held that the

publication in question did not warrant prosecution of the accused 3 Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No(s). 3180 of 2020

appellant for the offence punishable under Section 500 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860. We are also of the view that the news

article in question was published in good faith and in exercise of

the Fundamental Right of Freedom of Speech and Expression

enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.

9. As an upshot of above discussion, we are of the opinion that

the view taken by the learned Magistrate cannot be termed to be

illegal or unjustified warranting interference by the High Court in

exercise of the revisional jurisdiction.

10. Resultantly, the order dated 15th October, 2018 passed by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge as well as the order dated 29th

January, 2020 passed by the High Court are quashed and set

aside.

11. As a consequence, all proceedings sought to be taken against

the accused appellant in pursuance of the complaint filed by the

respondent-complainant under Section 500 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 are also quashed.

12. The appeal stands allowed accordingly.

4 Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No(s). 3180 of 2020

13. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

.………………………………J. (B.R. GAVAI)

……………………………….J. (SANDEEP MEHTA) New Delhi;

January 29, 2024.

5