Top News Headlines 7th Jun 2022: Magistrate Cannot Order Investigation U/S 156(3) CrPC In Case Of Defamation Even If Other Offences Are Alleged

Magistrate Cannot Order Investigation U/S 156(3) CrPC In Case Of Defamation Even If Other Offences Are Alleged: Karnataka HC

• In Divya and Anr vs State of Karnataka the Hon’ble Karnataka HC has observed that the bar under section 199 of CrPC on a Magistrate from exercising powers under section 156(3) of CrPC and ordering investigation on a complaint involving offences under section 500 of IPC (defamation) would be applicable even in cases where other offences have been committed in addition to section 500 of IPC. 
• It is important to note that section 199 of CrPC stipulates that no Court can take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter 21 of IPC except upon the complaint made by some person aggrieved by the said offence. 
• In the instant case, the petitioners and the complainant/respondent were residents of the same apartment complex. A complaint was registered by the respondent against the instant petitioners under section 200 of CrPC alleging that due to the false allegation and the subsequent complaint made by the petitioner, his image in the eyes of the residents of the complex has been tarnished. 
• The Magistrate ordered an investigation into the allegation under section 156(3) of CrPC to be conducted by the police. The police, after investigation, filed a chargesheet in the matter for the offences punishable under sections 211, 499, 500 read with section 34 of IPC. 
• The Counsel for the petitioners in the instant case submitted that the Magistrate could not have directed the investigation into the said offences as the police could not have been involved. It was also argued that there was nothing defamatory in the complaint that was lodged before the police or the President of the Association and thus, under section 199 CrPC, the complainant cannot be said to be the aggrieved person. 
• The Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, argued that the petitioners had lodged a false case against the complainant and that the allegation did require an investigation as they also involved section 211 and 34 of IPC. The petitioners had clearly tarnished the image of the respondent in the eyes of the community and hence he would definitely be an aggrieved person under section 199 of CrPC.
• The Hon’ble HC observed that in cases involving defamation, which is defined under section 499 of IPC and punishable under section 500 IPC, the Court can take cognizance of the same only upon a complaint and not on a report filed by the Police.
• The Court relied heavily upon the decision of the Hon’ble SC in Subramanian Swamy vs Union of India (2016) SCC wherein it was held that where the complaint made before a Magistrate involves the offence of defamation punishable under section 500 IPC, the Magistrate cannot exercise powers under section 156(3) of CrPC, so as to direct the police to register a case and investigate the same, in view of the specific bar created by section 199 CrPC. 
• It was also observed that the same would be applicable even when offences other than 500 IPC are also alleged in the same complaint. 
• Thus, the petition was allowed and the lower Court was ordered to take up further proceedings in the case from the stage of registration of the complaint, and to take all necessary action in accordance with law. 

A Witness Cannot Be Re-Examined To Undo Statement Made In Cross Examination And Fill Lacunae In Evidence: Delhi High Court

• In Capitol Art House (P) Ltd. v. Neha Datta, the Delhi High Court held that the re-examination opportunity cannot be used as a chance to undo its prior statement made during cross-examination and fabricate the evidence. 
• In this case, the Court was dealing with a suit filed by the petitioner seeking to injunct the occupants, the defendants, from illegally entering any part of the first floor and the balcony of a shop located on the ground floor of the premises. 
• Subsequently, on 2nd August, 2019, issues were framed in the suit and a Local Officer was appointed to investigate and record evidence of the parties. 
• A Single Bench comprising Justice Amit Bansal noted that on 20th May, 2022, during the proceeding before the Local Officer, the counsel of the defendant requested to re-examine a defence witness which was opposed by the counsel of the petitioner.
• Accordingly, the Local Officer referred the matter to the Ld. Court for appropriate orders.
• The counsel of the defendant contended that the defendant was absolutely entitled to re-examine the witness as the said witness has replied only in 'yes' and 'no', and a proper explanation is needed from him. 
• On the other hand, the counsel of the plaintiff opposed the request and argued that a witness can never be allowed to be re-examined. 
• It was further submitted by the plaintiff's counsel that the said witness was an educated person with a law degree and had carefully chosen to give the answers with a conscious state of mind.
• The Hon'ble High Court after properly examining the facts, observed that the counsel for the defendant is trying to get further explanation of the answers from the witness in the guise of re-examination.
•  
• The Court further observed that 'there is no ambiguity, whatsoever, in the answers given by the witness that may require an explanation through re-examination. In the present case, the witness is a law graduate and has consciously chosen to give her answers in either 'yes' or 'no' without giving any explanation in support thereof.
• Accordingly, the Court held that no case of re-examination can be made out here as a witness cannot be made to re-examine just to undo his prior statements given during cross-examination. 

The Public Trust Doctrine Is Part Of Law Of Land And The State Must Uphold It: Supreme Court

• In Re : TN Godavarman Thirumalpad versus Union of India, the Supreme Court observed that the famous Public Trust Doctrine is a part of the law of land.
• The Court further said that the State has a duty to act as a trustee for the advantage of the general public pertaining to the natural resources so that the long term goal of sustainable development can be achieved. 
• A three judge bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao, BR Gavai and Aniruddha Bose noted thus while issuing directions in applications filed in the above-mentioned case.
• The Hon'ble Court directed that each protected forest must have an Eco Sensitive Zone (ESZ) of at least 1 kilometre.
• The Court observed that the State, in its affidavit, had granted permission for mining activities in non forest areas in Jamia Ramgarh and even beyond the ESZ for economic activities, keeping the interest of local population and the state's economy in mind.
• The Court further observed that "the role of the State cannot be ever confined to that of a facilitator or a mere generator of economic activities for immediate upliftment of the fortunes of the State. In fact, the State must act as a trustee for the welfare of the general public in relation to the natural resources so that sustainable development can be achieved".
• The Hon'ble Court also took reliance on the M.C. Mehta Judgement while determining that the Public Trust Doctrine is a part of the law of land and said that this doctrine rests on the principle that certain resources like water, air, forests and the sea have immense importance to the general public that it would be wholly unfair to make them a subject of private ownership.
• Accordingly, the Court held that the justification given by the State for mining in Jamua Ramgarh and in the neighbouring areas stems from the prospect of economic gains, overlooking state's duty as a trustee of natural resources of the land.