IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. Appeal No.342 of 2012

Reserved on: 07.03.2026

Date of Decision: 20.03.2026

____________________________________________________________________

Rakesh Kaushal ……...Appellant

Versus

Arvind Goel …....Respondent

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? Yes.

____________________________________________________________________

For the Appellant: Mr. Divya Raj Singh, Advocate.

For the Respondent: Mr. Sumit Sood, Advocate.

____________________________________________________________________

Sandeep Sharma, J.

Instant criminal appeal filed under Section 378 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure lays challenge to judgment dated 10.07.2012

passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (IV), Shimla,

Himachal Pradesh, in case number RBT 72/2 of 2011/03 titled as

Rakesh Kaushal Vs. Arvind Goel, whereby complaint, having been filed

by the appellant/complainant (hereinafter, ‘complainant’) under

Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC, came to be dismissed.

2. Precisely, the grouse of the appellant, as has been

highlighted in the appeal and further canvassed by Mr. Divya Raj Singh,

learned counsel representing the appellant, is that Court below has

2

fallen in grave error while passing the impugned judgment, because

evidence adduced on record by the complainant to prove his case under

Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC has not been appreciated in right

perspective. He stated that though by way of leading cogent and

convincing evidence, complainant successfully proved on record that on

account of lodging of complaint at the behest of complainant to Hon’ble

Governor and other higher authorities of the Government of Himachal

Pradesh as well as publication of news item in newspaper “Him

Himwanti”, highlighting therein alleged corruption by the complainant

while working as Deputy Commissioner, Sirmaur at Nahan, reputation of

the complainant was badly damaged, but yet Court below taking

hypertechnical view, discarded the same and proceeded to dismiss the

complaint. Mr. Divya Raj Singh, learned counsel representing the

appellant, stated that CW2-D.S. Rana and CW3-Rakesh Sharma

categorically deposed that on account of publication of news item, as

detailed hereinabove, image of the complainant, who is otherwise

considered to be an honest officer, was badly maligned and as such,

there was no occasion, if any, for Court below to dismiss the complaint,

rather, it ought to have taken cognizance of the offences committed by

3

the respondent (hereinafter, ‘accused’) under Sections 499 and 500 of

the IPC.

3. To the contrary, Mr. Sumit Sood, learned counsel

representing respondent, while supporting the impugned judgment

passed by the learned Court below, vehemently argued that no cogent

and convincing evidence ever came to be led on record at the behest of

complainant to prove defamation, if any, at the hands of the accused. He

stated that since it is not in dispute that accused published the news

item, which is alleged to be defamatory, in the capacity of Editor of Him

Himwanti newspaper, coupled with the fact that contents of the news

item were otherwise found to be correct by the Court below on the basis

of evidence adduced on record by the complainant itself, no illegality can

be said to have been committed by the Court below while dismissing the

complaint. He submitted that besides filing complaint before the Court

below, complainant also filed suit for damages titled as Rakesh Kaushal

Vs. Arvind Goel in the competent Court of law i.e. learned Additional

District Judge, Nahan, but the same was dismissed on 30.09.2009. He

stated that by now it is well settled that findings recorded by Civil Court

prevails until reversed by the Appellate Court, after duly considering the

same and weighing the evidence afresh. He contended that since

4

judgment rendered by the Civil Court was never laid challenge in the

appropriate proceedings, same has attained finality.

4. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and

perused material available on record, this Court finds that complainant

who had initially joined the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Services in

the year 1977, was subsequently inducted in Indian Administrative

Services on 12.02.1997. He remained posted in different departments on

different posts. While complainant was posted as Deputy Commissioner,

Sirmaur, he in the capacity of Collector decided case No.3 of 2000 on

24.12.2001, titled as State of H.P. Vs. Arvind Goel; case No.5 of 2000 on

24.12.2001, tilted as State of H.P. Vs. Poonam Goel; and case No.6 of

2000 on 24.12.2001, titled as State of H.P. Vs. Arvind Goel, under

Section 118(3) of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. In aforesaid

cases, complainant, being Collector, found that accused and his wife

committed gross violation of provisions of Section 118(3) of H.P. Tenancy

and Land Reforms Act, 1972 and accordingly, property in question was

ordered to be vested in State of H.P. free from all encumbrances.

Complainant alleged that on account of aforesaid decision rendered by

him, accused, who is Chief Editor and publisher of “Him Himwanti Media

Publication weekly Hindi”, as well as his wife became inimical towards

5

him and published an article with heading “UPYUKTA RAKESH

KAUSHAL BHARASHTACHAR MAIN LIPT, MANDIR KO BHI NAHIN

CHHODA” in his weekly paper i.e. Him Himwanti in its publication of 10-

16 March, 2002, and in its weekly newspaper of 4-10 December, 2002,

complainant alleged that accused also published news item with heading

“JAB SAIYAN BHI KOTWAL TO DAR KAHE KA”, wherein false allegations

qua corruption were levelled against him, which defamed him in the

estimation of his colleagues, relatives, subordinates and general public.

Since complainant suffered mental agony as well as physical pain on

account of aforesaid allegations, he filed complaint under Sections 499

and 500 of IPC in the competent Court of law.

5. Complainant besides examining himself as CW1, also

examined two witnesses in preliminary evidence i.e. DW2-D.S. Rana and

DW3-Rakesh Sharma. Learned trial Court on the basis of material

adduced before it, issued process vide order dated 31.05.2003 to the

accused, who after his appearance on the given date was admitted on

bail. On finding prima facie case, notice of accusation was put to the

accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove his

case, complainant examined himself as well as two other witnesses.

Accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. pleaded

6

innocence and examined five witnesses in his defence. On the basis of

pleadings as well as evidence adduced on record by the respective

parties, Court below proceeded to dismiss the complaint. In the afore

background, accused has approached this Court in the instant

proceedings praying therein to set aside the impugned order of dismissal

passed by the Court below and convict the accused, named in the

complaint, for their having committed offence punishable under Sections

499 and 500 of IPC.

6. Before ascertaining correctness of rival submissions made at

the behest of parties to the lis, this Court finds it necessary to take of

provisions contained in Section 499 and 500 of IPC, which read as

under:

499. Defamation.—

Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs

or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation

concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having

reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of

such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to

defame that person.

Explanation 1.— It may amount to defamation to impute

anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm

the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be

hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives.

7

Explanation 2.— It may amount to defamation to make an

imputation concerning a company or an association or

collection of persons as such.

Explanation 3.— An imputation in the form of an alternative or

expressed ironically, may amount to defamation.

Explanation 4.— No imputation is said to harm a person’s

reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the

estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character

of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect

of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person,

or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a

loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as

disgraceful.

500. Punishment for defamation.—

Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple

imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine,

or with both.

7. As per aforesaid provision of law, whoever, by words

either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible

representations, make or publishes any imputation concerning any

person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that

such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said to

defame that person, save and except few exceptions, as given in the

aforesaid provision of law. Section 500 of the IPC provides for

punishment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or

with both. In Section 499, the words "makes or publishes any

8

imputation" should be interpreted as words supplementing to each

other. It was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bilal Ahmed Kaloo

vs. State Of Andhra Pradesh, 1997 (7) SCC 431 , that a maker of

imputation without publication is not liable to be punished under that

section. High Court of Patna in Laloo Prasad vs State of Bihar and

Another, (1997) 2 Crimes 498(Pat.), held that a person cannot be

said to have committed an offence under Sections 500, 501, 502 and

504 of the IPC merely because some article or news item is published

attributing certain utterances to that person.

8. Complainant while deposing himself as CW1, precisely

claimed that since 1977, he has been working in different posts in

different departments with honesty and during aforesaid period, no

allegation of corruption was ever levelled against him. While stating

that he remained posted as Deputy Commissioner, Sirmaur, w.e.f.

1998 to 2002, complainant deposed that during afore period, he

performed his duties with devotion and honesty. He deposed that

while he was posted as Deputy Commissioner, he decided cases

under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act against the accused,

who was a Journalist, and his wife, detailed hereinabove, Ex.CW2/A

to Ex.CW2/C. He deposed that being aggrieved with these orders,

9

accused in his newspaper Him Himwanti published from Paonta,

levelled allegations of corruption against him Ex.CW1/C and

Ex.CW1/D. He deposed that publication was based on false

complaint, as a result thereof, people who knew him and his family

members, suffered mental agony, tension and his reputation was

harmed. He deposed that publications were without any proof and

were baseless. He deposed that accused also levelled serious

allegations against him in letters addressed to Hon’ble Governor,

Hon’ble Prime Minister and Chief Secretary etc., based on false facts

Ex.CW1/B-1 to B-9. While stating that Commissioner Revenue vide

Ex.CW1/A had asked for comments from him, he deposed that they

were referred to Government for inquiry. He deposed that M.R.

Sharma, Rakesh Sharma, D.S. Rana, Chaudhary and others had

asked him about these facts, which hurt him and his reputation was

tarnished in the estimation of general public. In his cross-

examination, complainant while admitting that information sought by

the journalist is to be supplied, he admitted that he was posted as

Deputy Commissioner, Sirmaur and was ex officio Chairman of

Mahamaya Bala Sundri Temple, Trilokpur, Renuka Vikas Board,

United National Funds for Population and Activities District

10

Seproperelim Society, PRDA, DPEP. He admitted that on 24.04.1999,

a news item was published in “Divya Himachal” with heading

“UPAYUKAT KI GUT KI SHARAT PAR PRASHAN NE BANAI CASSETTE

KALAKAR UPEKASHIT UPAYUKAT KE SAGE SAMBANDHI GATE

RAHE”. He also admitted that cassette of Bhajan was prepared in

which Kanwar Ikbal, Ratanika Tiwari, Kamal Tiwari, Rajesh, Rajeev,

he himself, Rohit, Neetika, Sevi etc. had sung. While admitting that

Rajesh and Rajeev are brothers and Sevi is his daughter and Kanwar

Ikbal was his old friend, complainant feigned ignorance that prior to

his posting as Deputy Commissioner, Sirmaur, Kanwar Ikbal had

prepared a cassette. He feigned ignorance as to how much amount

was paid to the person, who had prepared the cassette. He also

admitted factum of his having filed civil suit for damages in the Court

of learned Additional District Judge, Nahan, wherein he deposed that

he could tell from the record as to how much money was spent. While

admitting that G.Mat Corporation at Chandigarh was of his brother,

he denied that work of marketing was given to G.Mat Corporation. He

also denied that accused had come to inquire about truth in the item

published in the newspaper. While stating that he had not supplied

the information sought by the accused qua correctness of the news

11

item and about expenditure of the cassette, he deposed that he did

not think it compulsory to supply the same. He also admitted that

money of Bala Sundri Temple Committee is public fund. While

admitting that accused had sought information for cassette, he stated

that he cannot tell that 6 lacs were spent on preparing cassette. He

₹

admitted that he had not objected the news item nor had made any

complaint to Press Council of India. He stated that while being

Chairman of VNFPA, he had made some appointments in Tikkari

Dhakasan, which finds mention in the report of inquiry

Commissioner. He deposed that he cannot tell without record that

due to embezzlement of funds, salary of some people could not be

paid, who subsequently issued notice to him being Deputy

Commissioner/Chairman. He admitted that he had replied the same

through Mr. K.S. Banyal, Advocate. While stating that he does not

remember that his orders were set aside in appeal, as property was

not covered under Section 118 of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms

Act, complainant stated that he had seen audio cassette of “Bhajan”

in which it had been written that same were marketed by G.Mat

Corporation, Chandigarh. He also admitted that letters Ex.CW1/B-2

to B-9 were not published. He also admitted that he had received

12

letters from Under Secretary to Hon’ble Governor and complaint to

Governor was regarding mishandling of funds of Bala Sundari Mandir

and he did not think it appropriate to supply information despite

letter of Governor’s Secretary. He also admitted that in his official

capacity as Collector, he had filed contempt against the accused in

the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. He also admitted that he had

moved a complaint under Section 174 of the IPC in the Court of

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan, against the accused and his

wife. He admitted that he knew DRO Sunder Singh and Hari Ram

Kanungo, who were posted under him at Nahan. He feigned ignorance

that on 08.03.2002, he had sent them to the house of accused at

Paonta. While denying that funds received under UMFPA Scheme

were to be spent in time bound manner, complainant further denied

that he had misbehaved with Kumari Sarita qua which complaint was

also lodged.

9. Careful perusal of statement made by CW2-D.S. Rana

and CW3-Rakesh Sharma, reveals that afore persons knew

complainant personally since long, as they had worked with him in

some capacity. Both above named witnesses deposed that while

complainant worked with them, his image was of honest and devoted

13

officer. They also stated that on account of publication of news item,

as detailed hereinabove, reputation of complainant was harmed in

their view. CW2-D.S. Rana, who was working as P.A. to Secretary

Governor in the year 2001, stated that he cannot tell that letter

Ex.CW1/B-2 was sent confidential to the Hon’ble Governor. He also

admitted that he had not apprised the Hon’ble Governor about the

action taken on the same. While admitting that complaint can be filed

against public officer to the higher authority, he admitted that he is

not aware that accused Arvind Goel had filed complaint against the

complainant for his having not supplied the details qua the

expenditure on the Bhajan cassette.

10. CW3-Rakesh Sharma, who was posted as HPAS Officer

and had worked with the complainant, in his cross-examination

stated that he remained as A.C. to D.C. Sirmaur and S.D.M. Nahan

from the year 1999 to 2003. He stated that when he was posted at

Nahan, no cassette of any Bhajan was prepared. He admitted that on

24.04.1999, news item was published in Divya Himachal with the

heading “UPAYUKAT KE RISHTEDAR GATE RAHE KALAKAR

UPEKSHIT RAHE”. He admitted that proceedings Ex.DW1/C was not

of his tenure and he never came to know about any disputed cassette.

14

While admitting that in Ex.DW1/C, there is no mention of name of

cassette, he admitted that from Ex.DW1/D, it cannot be said as to

whom the payment has been made. While stating that SDM was

Rajeshwar Goel at that time, this witness deposed that he does not

remember that any written information was supplied to the accused

or not. He stated that he is not aware that singers in the cassette were

relatives of the complainant and company was of brother of the

complainant. He stated that he is not aware that because of this

reason, journalist of “Divya Himachal” got suspicious and news dated

24.04.1999 was published against the complainant. While stating

that he cannot tell that when information was not supplied to the

accused, he made complaint to higher authorities, this witness

admitted in his cross-examination that he does not remember that

from the office of Governor, it was ordered that information be

supplied to the accused.

11. Besides above, accused examined DW1-Heera Chand and

DW2-Anand Prakash, who being Ahlmad from the office of Divisional

Commissioner, Shimla and Clerk from C.M.O. Nahan at Sirmaur,

produced the summoned record. DW3-Piyare Lal, Reader to D.C.

Sirmaur at Nahan, also brought summoned record and stated that as

15

per record, no show cause notice dated 30.01.2002 was issued to

Arvind Goel. In his cross-examination, he stated that as per record

brought by him, there was list of violators of 24 industrial units.

DW4-Prem Chand, Criminal Ahlmad in the Court of learned Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Nahan at Sirmaur, brought summoned record of

Civil Suit No.67/1 of 2009/02, titled as Rakesh Kaushal Vs. Arvind

Goel, filed for damages to the tune of 10,00,000/-. He stated that as

₹

per record, it has been dismissed on 30.09.2009 by the learned Civil

Judge (Sr. Division). In his cross-examination, he admitted that he

cannot tell as to on what account damages were sought. DW5-Harish

Kumar Sharma deposed that as per record sum of 4,47,442/- were

₹

spent for preparation of audio cassette, original of which is

Ex.DW5/A. He deposed that cassette was marketed by G.Mat

Company, but he is not aware as to who was the owner of the same.

He submitted that payment qua cassette was made in cash. He

submitted that Ex.DW5/B-1 to B-10 and Ex.DW5/C1 to C-4 were

correct as per their record. In his cross-examination, this witness

admitted that he was posted in Trilokpur Mandir since 1998 and

decision to prepare cassette was taken by the Mandir Committee. He

deposed that singers were called at the instance of Music Director

16

Kanwar Ikbal and no money was paid to relatives of complainant. He

further stated that money fetched from selling the cassette was given

to Mandir Committee and entry qua the same was made in the record.

12. From the careful perusal of the evidence led on record by

the complainant, this Court finds that complainant attempted to

carve out a case that he was defamed by the accused by publishing

false news item in newspaper “Him Himwanti” and by writing letter to

Hon’ble Governor and other higher authorities of Government of

Himachal Pradesh.

13. To the contrary, accused by way of examining defence

witnesses, as have been taken note hereinabove, attempted to prove

that complainant in his capacity as Chairman to VNFPA to District

Sirmaur sanctioned certain amounts and prior to filing the complaint

at hand, he had filed Civil Suit bearing No.67/1 of 2009/02 in the

Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) on the same and similar

grounds, but the same was dismissed. By examining DW5-Harish

Kumar, accused attempted to prove that sum of 4,47,442 were spent

₹

for preparation of audio cassette, which was marketed by G.Mat

company, owned by the brother of the complainant and entire amount

collected from the sale of cassette was deposited with temple trust.

17

14. If the statement made by complainant is read in its

entirety, it clearly suggests that he, being ex officio Chairman of

Mahamaya Bala Sundri Temple, got one cassette of Bhajan prepared

wherein he along with Kanwar Ikbal, Ratanika Tiwari, Kamal Tiwari,

Rajesh, Rajeev, Rohit, Neetika, Sevi etc. had sung. He categorically

admitted that accused had sought information qua cassette, which

was not supplied to him. He also admitted that despite notice from

Secretary to Hon’ble Governor, he did not think it necessary to supply

information to the accused qua expenditure on cassette. He also

admitted in his cross-examination that G.Mat Corporation was of his

brother at Chandigarh. It also came in the evidence that sum of

4,47,442/- were spent on audio cassette and same was marketed by

₹

G.Mat company, which itself shows that brother of complainant was

involved in marketing of the cassette and he himself, his brother and

daughter had sung in the cassette and information sought by the

accused qua the same was withheld by him for the reason best known

to him, as a result thereof, one news item was published in Divya

Himachal under the heading “UPAYUKAT KI GUT KI SHARAT PAR

PRASHAN NE BANAI CASSETTE KALAKAR UPEKASHIT UPAYUKAT

KE SAGE SAMBANDHI GATE RAHE”.

18

15. Complainant in his cross-examination also admitted that

being Chairman of VNFPA, he had made some appointments in

Tikkari Dhakasan, which otherwise finds mention in the inquiry

report of the Commissioner. He nowhere denied factum with regard to

embezzlement in the funds, rather he chose to feigned ignorance and

stated that he cannot tell without record. No evidence worth credence

ever came to be led on record to prove that all persons appointed by

him as Chairman of VNFPA were paid salary in time and there was no

foul play in the same. It is quite clear from the statement of

complainant that his relatives were involved in the preparation of

cassette and he, ignoring other artists, gave preference to his brother,

sister and friend.

16. Having scanned evidence adduced on record by the

complainant, this Court is persuaded to agree with learned counsel

representing the accused that once no information with regard to

news item published in Divya Himachal was given to him, he, under

bona fide belief and in good faith, wrote letters to higher authorities

and made publication in newspaper for public good. Once

complainant himself admitted that accused had sought information

qua afore facts and he did not give such information to him, no act of

19

defamation otherwise can be said to have been committed by the

accused by writing letters to higher authorities for inquiry and by

publishing the news item, detailed hereinabove, contents whereof

otherwise stood published in earlier news item published in Divya

Himachal on 24.04.1999. Complainant though attempted to set up a

case that accused filed false complaint against him, on account of his

having decided cases against the accused, but he was unable to

dispute that orders passed by him under the H.P. Tenancy and Land

Reforms Act were set aside by the Divisional Commissioner.

17. Leaving everything aside, complainant admitted factum of

his having filed suit for damages in the Court of learned Additional

District Judge, Nahan. DW4-Prem Chand deposed that suit for

damages titled Rakesh Kaushal Vs. Arvind Goel was dismissed on

30.09.2009. Since complainant was unable to dispute that afore suit

was filed by him against the accused on same and similar facts, as of

the complaint, and suit filed by him was dismissed, he is otherwise

estopped from filing complaint on similar facts and circumstances.

Needless to say, findings recorded by Civil Court prevails until same

are set aside by the higher Court. Since in the case at hand, no

appeal, whatsoever, came to be filed after the judgment rendered by

20

the Civil Court below, judgment rendered by Court below can be said

to have attained finality. Besides above, complainant had moved

complaint under Section 174 of IPC and contempt proceedings before

this Court, but the same were dismissed, as is evident from Ex.DB

and Ex.DA.

18. Careful perusal of Section 499 of IPC, as reproduced

hereinabove, clearly suggests that it is not defamation to impute

anything which is true concerning any person, if it is for the public

good that the imputation should be made or published. Similarly, it is

not defamation to express in a good faith any opinion whatsoever

respecting the conduct of a public servant in the discharge of his

public functions. Words “intended to be” used in Section 499 of the

IPC are very material to conclude defamation. Intention to harm is

necessarily required to prove guilt of defamation. Similarly, good faith

and bona fide belief are defences available to the accused charged

with the offence of defamation. In the present case, accused has been

able to probabilise defence that he had reasonable apprehension qua

the working of the complainant and as such, in good faith for public

good, he had made complaint to higher authorities. To the contrary,

complainant failed to prove that accused intentionally and without

21

any basis published the news item and written letters to higher

authorities, as a result of which, his reputation was damaged or badly

maligned.

19. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion made

hereinabove, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the impugned

judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (IV),

Shimla, Himachal Pradesh and as such, same is upheld. Accordingly,

present appeal is dismissed.

Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

March 20, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma),

(Rajeev Raturi) Judge