BENCH: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN
CASE TITLE: FIROZ BAKHT AHMED V. STATE OF TELANGANA
CASE DETAILS: This criminal petition is filed under section 482 of CRPC, 1973, and challenges the order of the High Court of Telangana, whereby through the previous order of this case, several petitions of this case have been quashed together.
However, the High Court dismisses the criminal petition due to the absence of merit. The petitioner then moved to the Supreme Court by filing a special leave petition.
FACTS: In this case, the offense alleged against the petitioner is under sections 499 and 500 of IPC and the petitioner filed a criminal petition under section 428 of CRPC for quashing the proceedings against him.
- The 2nd respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner under sections 499 & 500 of IPC.
- According to the complaint, the petitioner was the chancellor of Maulana Azad National Urdu University and stated before the press that the 2nd respondent was a ‘sexual predator’, to defame the 2nd respondent.
- It is stated that based on complaints made by students, the stated statement is given against respondent 2. The students narrated that faculty including 2nd respondent had improperly touched them and acted in a manner that was embarrassing and amounted to an invasion of their privacy. On the basis of this petitioner addressed a letter to DGP, Telangana, and the ministers.
- Based on this the 2nd respondent filed a complaint after issuing of notice to tender an apology and to pay the amount of Rs. 16 Lakh as compensation.
- It is mentioned in the complaints that the 2nd respondent was making advances, oral and physical, and started harassing the student. Similar allegations were made by other students also.
- The petitioner was seeking exceptions 3 and 9 of section 499 of IPC stating that the imputation made by him on the 2nd respondent was in good faith and was based on complaints of girl students.
COURT OBSERVED: The court observed that repeatedly calling the 2nd respondent ‘sexual predator’ in the form of alternative or expressed ironically may ‘prima facie’ amount to defamation as per explanation 3 of section 499 of IPC. The court further observed that the petitioner had passed or made such a comment ironically and the same phrases were used against the 2nd respondent even after discharge of allegations against him will amount to the offense of defamation.
COURT HELD: After the observations made by the court, the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the criminal petition filed by the petitioner for quashing the proceedings against him.
