Srinagar: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Tuesday refused to quash criminal proceedings against Congress leader and Ex-MLA of Devsar Mohammad Amin Bhat for defaming PDP Leader Sartaj Madni.
Justice Sanjay Dhar said that it is not open to this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 561-A of J&K Cr. P. C to quash the complaint and the proceedings emanating there from.
The petitioner, Bhat had challenged a complaint filed by Mohammad Sartaj Madani for offence under Section 500 RPC before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anantnag.
The court of Justice Sanjay Dhar held that merely because the petitioner was an MLA does not give him a licence to make unsubstantiated and unconfirmed libelous statements against his political rival.
The fact, the court said, that the petitioner challenged the complainant to sue him, shows that he has levelled these allegations knowing well that these allegations are going to tarnish the reputation of the complainant.
“While it is the duty of an elected representative to keep his electorate informed about the official conduct of public figures but such duty cannot extend to the extent of making reckless defamatory allegations against political rivals,” Justice Dhar recorded.
It is alleged that during the public meeting at Devsar, Bhat had made statements that the complainant(Madani), has accumulated property worth Rs.10,000/ crores by looting poor people, he got loan amount of Rs.40.00 lakhs waived off. Bhat had alleged that Madani ensured allotment of project worth Rs.200/ crores to his son at Anantnag without undertaking any tendering process for construction of Medical College at Larkipora and had received bribe of Rs.10.00 lakhs for each appointment in J&K Bank besides had received an amount of rupees one crore from every officer.
The court said that the statements alleged to have been made by the petitioner, prima facie, do not fall within the purview of the expression “public good” and “good faith” as appearing in the exceptions to Section 499 of RPC.
“The contention of the petitioner, therefore, deserves to be rejected” it held.
The court recorded that it is clear that the averments made in the complaint and the material in support thereof clearly disclose commission of offence under Section 500 RPC against the petitioner.
The court noted that Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anantnag has after applying his mind to the complaint as well as the preliminary statement of the complainant and his witness, recorded satisfaction that the offence under Section 500 RPC is made out against the petitioner/accused, whereafter process has been issued against him.
Therefore, the court said, no fault can be found with the impugned order passed on August, 20, 2018 whereby process has been issued against the petitioner.
The court further noted that Section 179 of the Jammu and Kashmir Code of Criminal Procedure provides that when a person is accused of commission of any offence, such offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any such thing has been done or any such consequence has ensued.
“Thus, even if the defamatory statements were made by the petitioner within local limits of territorial jurisdiction of district Kulgam, the fact that these statements went viral would give jurisdiction to all the Courts within whose local limits these statements were heard by the public,” the court held.
Justice Dhar said that making and publication of imputations which are defamatory in nature is an essential ingredient of offence of defamation.
“Therefore, consequences of defamatory statement ensue at all those places where these statements are published or disseminated,” he said.
Thus, the mere fact that the petitioner had made the statements outside the local limits of jurisdiction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anantnag, does not bar the jurisdiction of the said Magistrate when these statements are alleged to have reached the public in Anantnag as well, the court said.
Th court noted that it is not the case of the petitioner that he made these statements on the basis of any document or information which was in the public domain.
The court recorded that all these imputations and allegations against the complainant have originated from petitioner only.
“The statements of the petitioner are ex-facie libelous and defamatory in nature,” the court held.
The Petitioner does not even claim that these allegations and statements are true, it said.

NUSRAT SIDIQ