(2025:JHHC:27315) 1 Cr. M.P. No.3788 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.3788 of 2023 ------ 1. Ajay Kumar Jain Aged about 78 years son of Subodh Kumar Jain, President of Digambar Jain Bispanthi Uproli Kothi, Madhuban, Resident of Madhuban, P.O. & P.S. Madhuban, District Giridih 2. Deepak Kumar Singh @ Deepak Singh Aged about 61 years, son of Vishnu Dev Singh, Assistant Manager, Accounts Department, Digambar Jain Bispanthi Uproli Kothi, Madhuban, Resident of Madhuban, P.O. & P.S. Madhuban, District Giridih … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sudhakar Kondiya Annadate, aged about 76 years son of Late Kondiya Annadate, Resident of Madhuban, P.O. & P.S. Madhuban, District- Giridih … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Manindra Kr. Sinha, Advocate Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, Addl.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Nagmani Tiwari, Advocate Mr. Govind Ray Karan, Advocate ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with a prayer to quash the order taking cognizance dated 25.02.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Giridih in connection with Complaint Case No.1527 of 2021 whereby and whereunder the learned (2025:JHHC:27315) 2 Cr. M.P. No.3788 of 2023 Magistrate has found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the complainant was an employee of Sri Digambar Jain Bispanthi Uproli Kothi, Madhuban Shikharjee, Madhuban and was working as Manager. It is further alleged by the complainant that the petitioners who are respectively the Chairman and Assistant Manager, Accounts Department of the said organization, terminated the services of the complainant as the Manager on the allegation that he has withdrawn Rs.5,11,462/- towards his salary and other heads of account, by adopting unfair means. Before that a show-cause was called for from the complainant. On that notice calling for show-cause, it was alleged that the complainant indulged in other misdeeds also. The complainant approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Giridih. There was a conciliation proceeding between the parties, but the same failed. The complainant was intimated by the Assistant Labour Commissioner that as the conciliation proceeding failed, hence, he can approach the appropriate forum. The complainant filed Complaint Case No.1527 of 2021 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih. There is no allegation in the complaint that any poster was pasted by either of the two petitioners but in a question to the court, the complainant mentioned that he can file the copy of the poster which was affixed but there is no material in the record to suggest that what was the contents of the poster, if any, affixed and by whom such poster was affixed. The learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Giridih to whose court apparently the case was transferred, considering the materials in the record, that is, the complaint, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the statement of the enquiry witnesses found prima facie (2025:JHHC:27315) 3 Cr. M.P. No.3788 of 2023 case for the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code and directed for issuance of summons to the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the complainant has suppressed the material fact that on the termination of his services, the complainant himself being an advocate by profession, moved before the Labour Department, Giridih. It is next submitted that during the conciliation proceeding, Sri Digambar Jain Bispanthi Kothi, Madhuban Shikharjee, Madhuban insisted upon the complainant to return the money misappropriated by him but as he did not agree, hence, the conciliation proceeding failed. It is then submitted that the complainant/opposite party No.2 is more than 75 years of age and his services has only been terminated by the petitioners in capacity of the office bearers of the said Sri Digambar Jain Bispanthi Uproli Kothi, Madhuban Shikharjee, Madhuban. It is then submitted that there is no allegation that the alleged imputations have been made by the petitioners with intent to harm or with knowledge or belief that it will harm the reputation of the concerned person. It is next submitted that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed. 5. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioners made in the instant Cr.M.P. and submit that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of publishing imputations intending to harm and knowing and having reason to believe such imputation it will (2025:JHHC:27315) 4 Cr. M.P. No.3788 of 2023 harm the reputation of the such person. Hence, it is submitted that the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 that the termination of the services of the complainant is an act of dictatorship, whimsical and illegal. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the essential ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 500 are as under:- (i) The accused made or published any imputation concerning any person, (ii) Such imputation was made by words either spoken or written with intent to read or by signs or by visible representations (iii) Such imputation must have been made with intent to harm or with knowledge or belief that such imputation will harm the reputation of the person concerned; as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of John Thomas vs. Dr. K. Jagadeesan reported in (2001) 6 SCC 30. 7. The ninth exception of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code which defines defamation which reads as under:- 499. Defamation.- 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. The plain reading of the ninth exception makes it abundantly clear that in case the imputation is made in good faith by the person for protection of his or other’s interest, then it is not defamation. (2025:JHHC:27315) 5 Cr. M.P. No.3788 of 2023 8. Now, coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed fact remains that the communication between the petitioners and the complainant was only confined to the knowledge of the petitioners, the senior office bearers of Sri Digambar Jain Bispanthi Uproli Kothi, Madhuban Shikharjee, Madhuban and the complainant. It is not in dispute that the petitioner submitted that the allegations in good faith believing the allegation to be true in the interest of the said Sri Digambar Jain Bispanthi Uproli Kothi, Madhuban Shikharjee, Madhuban, of which they were the office bearers. There is absolutely no material in the record that the said alleged imputations come to the knowledge of anyone else than the petitioners, the senior office bearers of Sri Digambar Jain Bispanthi Uproli Kothi, Madhuban Shikharjee, Madhuban and the complainant, except the authorities like the Assistant Labour Commissioner to whom the complainant approached. There is no allegation against the petitioner of making such imputations with intent to harm or with knowledge or belief that it will harm the reputation of the complainant. In the absence of these essential ingredients, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners in the complaint, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the statement of the enquiry witnesses are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners. Hence, the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioners will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the order taking cognizance dated 25.02.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Giridih in connection with Complaint Case No.1527 of 2021, be quashed and set aside. (2025:JHHC:27315) 6 Cr. M.P. No.3788 of 2023 9. Accordingly, the order taking cognizance dated 25.02.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Giridih in connection with Complaint Case No.1527 of 2021 is quashed and set aside against the petitioners. 10. In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 09th of September, 2025 AFR/ Animesh