SARALA BIRLA Vs. DURGA PROSAD SHASTRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner Sm. Sarala Birla alias Mrs. B. K. Birla has filed this application under Ss. 439 and 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing certain proceedings pending against her in the Court of the Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, under Sec. 500, Indian Penal Code, in case No. C/277 of 1972.

(2.) On a petition of complaint filed by the complainant opposite party No. 1, Durga Prosad Sliastri, alias Shastriji, before the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate on January 20, 1972, the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate after examining the complainant issued process against the Petitioner under Sec. 500, Indian Penal Code. It was alleged in the said petition of complaint that the Petitioner Sm. Birla published an article in Hindi in the issue dated May 9, 1971, of Saptahik Hindusthan, a weekly magazine published by the Hindusthan Times Press, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. The article was entitled 'Jai Shri Badri Vishal' and were the reminiscences of a journey to Kedar -Badrinath undertaken by Sm. Birla along with other members of her family in which the complainant opposite party Durga Prosad Shastri acted as caretaker. It was alleged that in the said article the complainant opposite party had been referred to and described as an irresponsible person, a glutton, more anxious for his own choicest food than doing his duties, who roamed in dreamy land in poetic fantasy ignoring the responsibilities he was entrusted with, who behaved in such a manner as having no sense of responsibility and who was unreliable to act as the manager or caretaker of the party visiting the holy shrines of Badrinalhji and Kedarnathji. On the said petition of complaint process was also issued against the accused opposite party No. 2 Monohar Shyam Joshi, Editor of the Saptahik Hindusthan, and the accused opposite party No. 3 Ram Nandan Sinha, the printer and publisher of the said magazine.

(3.) Mr. Ajit Kumar Dutt, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, has referred us to the petition of complaint and has drawn our attention to the. English translation of the Hindi article which was annexed to the said petition and he has referred to certain passages which, according to the complainant opposite party, are defamatory. Mr. Dutt has submitted that Sm. Birla wrote the article as reminiscences of her journey to Kcdar -Badrmath and in that article she made reference to Shastriji, for whom she had deep affection and esteem, and she did not in any way intend to defame or injure his feelings. In fact, Sm. Birla wrote to Shri Shastri a letter which is annexed to the petition of complaint wherein replying to a letter dated June 29,1971, written by Shri Shastri, she stated that -