Justice Kishore C. Sant, Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench)
Protest Letter Submitted To Higher Authority At Workplace Demanding Proper Action Not Defamation: Bombay High Court
|The applicants before the Bombay High Court sought the quashing of the proceedings filed by the college HOD.
The Bombay High Court has quashed the defamation proceedings initiated against the colleagues of a lady Professor on a complaint made by the Head of the music department of a Government College. The High Court observed that the protest letter was a representation made to the Principal demanding proper action to be taken, and this did not amount to defamation.
The application before the High Court was made seeking the quashing of the proceedings filed by the respondent.
The Single Bench of Justice Kishore C. Sant stated, “In the present case, it is the representation made to the Principal i.e. a person authorized to receive complaints. There is no intention seen on the part of any of the applicants to defame the respondent No. 1. What is stated is only that proper action be taken against the complainant. The representation is more in the nature of giving support to alleged victim lady. It is only a protest letter. The proposed letter is worded very mildly and is properly worded. Nothing can be said to be amounting to defamation.”
Advocate C. V. Dharurkar represented the Applicants, while Advocate H. B. Nandagavale represented the Respondents.
Factual Background
The first respondent was working as a Head of the Music Department in a Government College. One professor in the department made a complaint to the Principal, stating that the informant was mentally harassing her, and he also expressed his feelings towards her. It was alleged that thereafter, he started making various complaints against her and also started loose-talking about her with the students. The lady professor stated that she is the only female in the department and therefore, she was not comfortable while working.
Along with her complaint, the colleagues of the alleged victim also gave representation to the Principal, condemning the act of the respondent. On this, the respondent sent a legal notice to the applicants stating that they had committed an act of defamation and he would proceed against them by filing a complaint for the offences under Sections 109, 120-B, 500, 506, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Thereafter, he filed a complaint in the Court of the J.M.F.C., Aurangabad. The process was also issued. The applicants, therefore, approached the High Court seeking the quashing of the proceedings.
Reasoning
Referring to the letter/representation, the Bench stated that the same showed that it was a communication by all the colleagues of the alleged victim to the superior authority. “Sending such representation can in no way be said to be defamatory”, it said.
Reference was also made to the eighth exception of Section 499 of the IPC, which provides that representation in good faith to an authorised person does not come under the definition of defamation. “Thus, considering the section it is clear that, making any representation in good faith for protection of his or others interest cannot be said to be a defamation”, it said.
The Bench found that the representation, in the form of a protest letter, was more in the nature of giving support to the alleged victim lady. The same was worded very mildly, and it did not amount to defamation. The Bench was convinced that the proceedings of the complaint would be an abuse of the process of law.
Thus, allowing the application, the Bench quashed the proceedings in question.
Cause Title: Sow. Chandrajyoti Arun Muley v. Parshuram Kondiba Kamble (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AUG:22956)
Appearance
Applicants: Advocate C. V. Dharurkar
Respondents: Advocate H. B. Nandagavale, V. D. Sakolkar, APP Chaitali Chaudhari-Kutti