HC junks case on officer over ‘defamatory’ remarks

Cuttack: Around 21 years after criminal proceedings were initiated against an IAS officer of Odisha cadre for allegedly making defamatory remarks against a lawyer when he was the sub-divisional magistrate (SDM) in Malkangiri, the Orissa high court has quashed them observing that “abusive and insulting language, not amounting to defamation, is not actionable”.
According to the case records, advocate Gobinda Patra had appeared before T Wapang Ao, then SDM, to argue his case on August 5, 2003. During the course of the proceedings, Ao requested the presentation of evidence from the second party. But Patra raised objections on the ground that such a request contradicted procedural norms. In response, Ao allegedly raised his voice and said, “Shut up, tu jaa re (you go from here), tu kia mote procedure sikhayibu? (who are you to teach me procedure?)”
Patra then filed the complaint before the sub-divisional judicial magistrate (SDJM), Malkangiri, against Ao. Acting on the complaint, the SDJM had taken cognisance of offences under sections 500 and 506 of the IPC against Ao.
Later when the SDJM rejected Ao’s petition seeking discharge from the offences on August 16, 2023, he moved the high court.
While quashing the proceedings pending before the SDJM, the single-judge bench of Justice S K Panigrahi on March 28 said, “In my opinion, the complaint filed under sections 500 and 506 of the IPC lacks basic ingredients and no useful purpose would be served in permitting the trial court to proceed with the complaint which lacks the basic ingredients and sanction to bring home the charges.”
“I also wish to express my deep concern regarding the protracted litigation surrounding what can only be described as a trivial case. It is disheartening to witness legal proceedings stretch over two decades, consuming valuable time, resources, and judicial bandwidth,” Justice Panigrahi also observed.
He said the essential ingredient of sections 499 and 500 of the IPC is that the imputation made by the accused should have the potential to harm the reputation of the person against whom the imputation is made.
“No reasonable person can affirm that the aforementioned remark by itself has the propensity to harm the reputation of the lawyer/complainant,” Justice Panigrahi said, adding, “The reprimand or snarky remark seems to have been made in this context sans any intention to harm the reputation of the complainant.”