RAJENDRA KUMAR SITARAM PANDE ETC. versus UTTAM AND ANOTHER

RAJENDRA KUMAR SITARAM PANDE ETC. versus UTTAM AND ANOTHER

The order issuing process is not an interlocutory order and was amenable to revision. The facts of the case fall within exception 8 to Section 499 IPC, as the accused made their report to a superior officer in good faith and a departmental inquiry found the complainant guilty. Thus, no case for defamation was made out and the proceedings were quashed.

Parties
Appellant: Rajendra Kumarsitaram Pande; Respondent: Uttam; Respondent: Another (Respondent No. 2)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
11 February 1999
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Criminal Procedure, Defamation, Revisional Jurisdiction
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Defamation Revisional Jurisdiction

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rajendra Kumarsitaram Pande

Appellant

Uttam

Respondent

Another (Respondent No. 2)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an order directing issuance of process is interlocutory and amenable to revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC.
  2. 2 Whether the facts bring the case within exception 8 to Section 499 IPC.

Ratio Decidendi

The order issuing process is not an interlocutory order and was amenable to revision. The facts of the case fall within exception 8 to Section 499 IPC, as the accused made their report to a superior officer in good faith and a departmental inquiry found the complainant guilty. Thus, no case for defamation was made out and the proceedings were quashed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Impugned order of High Court set aside
  • Order of Sessions Judge restored