2024 P Cr (PLP)

Ali Baqar Najafi, J.

Through this criminal revision under sections 435, 439 Cr.P.C., the order dated 12.03.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore has been challenged whereby the petitioner was summoned in a private complaint to face trial under section 499 P.P.C.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the filing of this criminal revision are that the respondent No.1 filed a private complaint alleging that the petitioner through different documents including habeas petition, guardian petition, etc. at different fora has alleged that the respondent is a Ahmadi/Qadiani by faith whereas he is a Barelvi Muslim and in this way petitioner has defamed him by causing false imputation. Besides, allegations of extending threats to the respondent were also levelled against the petitioner and others. After recording the cursory statements, the petitioner was summoned to face trial, hence this criminal revision.

3. Arguments heard. Record perused.

4. Relevant Eighth Exception of section 499 P.P.C. is reproduced as under:- "

499. Defamation. Whoever by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by sign 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 excepted, to defame that person. ....... ....... Eighth Exception. Accusation preferred in good faith to authorked person. It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject-matter of accusation."

4. The essential ingredients of section 499 P.P.C. Defamation is mens rea and, therefore, accusation levelled in good faith before a lawful authority for protection of his right or interest cannot be a defamation. When the statement was made for public good and to safeguard the interest of its maker, without any malicious motive, offence of defamation was not made out. However, it was observed that for summoning an accused person, the facts of the case should be only discussed prima-facie and, therefore, the inherent powers of this court are to be sparingly exercised just to prevent the abuse of the process of law[ ]

5. In the context of above discussed legal position, some important questions must not be lost sight of: Firstly, whether the faith of father does not determine the faith of the child in normal circumstances. Secondly, in the wake of total denial of a particular faith by a person, whether a family court can issue any such declaration, within the scope of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 while determining the welfare of the minor in deciding his custody petition. Thirdly, whether the petitioner is alleged to have imputed the allegations against the said respondent before the judicial authorities in good faith. Fourthly, whether the court of Additional Sessions Judge is not the forum to determine the criminal consequences of calling someone with some faith other than his own.

6. However, all these questions will have to be determined first by the learned Additional Sessions Judge once these legal arguments and relevant and essential facts are brought to the notice of the learned trial court through filing an application under section 265-K Cr.P.C. since the petitioner has already entered appearance there. Admittedly, no such application was filed before the said court, therefore, petitioner, if so advised, may file said application . With this observation, the instant criminal revision stands Disposed of. MQ/A-24/L Order accordingly.