Prosecution for the offence of defamation can be initiated only

Question

“There is no gainsaying that an able bodied youthful Jawan when physically assaulted by his superior may be in a state of provocation. The gravity of such a provocation may be heightened if the physical beating was meant to force him to submit to unnatural carnal intercourse to satisfy the superior’s lust. The store room incident involving the appellant and the deceased is alleged to have taken place when the deceased had bolted the door of the store room to keep out any intruder from seeing what was happening inside. By any standard the act of a superior to humiliate and force his subordinate in a closed room to succumb to the lustful design of the former was a potent recipe for anyone placed in the appellant’s position to revolt and retaliate against the treatment being given to him. What may have happened inside the store room if the appellant had indeed revolted and retaliated against the unbecoming conduct of the deceased is a matter of conjecture. The appellant or any one in his position may have retaliated violently to the grave peril of his tormentor. The fact of the matter, however, is that the appellant appears to have borne the assault without any retaliation against the deceased-superior and somehow managed to escape from the room…All that the evidence proves is that after the said incident
the appellant was seen crying and depressed and when asked by his colleagues, he is said to have narrated his tale of humiliation at the hands of the deceased…. That appears to have happened in the present case also for the appellant’s version is that he and his colleagues had planned to avenge the humiliation by beating up the deceased in the evening when they all assemble near the water heating point. That apart, the appellant attended to his normal duty during the day time and after the evening dinner, went to perform his guard duty at 2100 hrs.”
[Extracted from B.D Khunte v. Union of India, Criminal Appeal No. 2328 of 2014, para 12-13].

Answer 1

Defamation under Section 499 IPC is classified as a non-cognizable offence, which controls how a court may take cognizance of it.

On the complaint of the aggrieved party: For non-cognizable offences generally, and for defamation specifically under Section 199 CrPC, the law requires a private complaint before a magistrate, filed by the person who has actually suffered the harm. This matches the statutory scheme exactly.
On the basis of an F.I.R: F.I.R.s trigger police investigation only for cognizable offences; defamation being non-cognizable, this route does not apply here.
On the basis of a police report: A police report presupposes a completed police investigation, which itself is unavailable for defamation without special magisterial permission that Section 199 does not treat as a substitute for a complaint.
Domestic affairs of a family: This is not a recognised classification anywhere in criminal procedure and has no bearing on who may set the process in motion.

Matching the offence's non-cognizable character to the specific procedural bar in Section 199 CrPC confirms that the correct answer is on the complaint of the aggrieved party.

Answer 2

Beyond the bare text of the statute, the reasoning behind this rule helps confirm the correct option. Defamation protects a person's individual reputation, and the law is designed to let that person, and only that person, control whether the matter is aired in court.

On the complaint of the aggrieved party: Because reputation is a personal interest, the legislature deliberately kept the police out of defamation proceedings and vested the choice to prosecute solely in the person whose reputation was harmed. This is precisely why a personal complaint is mandated.
On the basis of an F.I.R: Allowing an F.I.R. would let the police initiate proceedings even without the aggrieved person's consent, defeating the purpose of keeping control of the prosecution in the victim's hands. This is why the law does not permit this route.
On the basis of a police report: A police report would similarly bypass the victim's discretion, since it results from an investigation the victim may not have wanted. Permitting this would undercut the very safeguard Section 199 is meant to provide.
Domestic affairs of a family: There is no rational basis to make the procedural mode contingent on whether the defamation is a family matter; the safeguard applies uniformly to every aggrieved person regardless of context.

The underlying rationale, that only the person actually harmed should decide whether to invoke the criminal process, aligns with only one of the given options.

Therefore, the correct answer is on the complaint of the aggrieved party.

Answer 3

Beyond the bare text of the statute, the reasoning behind this rule helps confirm the correct option. Defamation protects a person's individual reputation, and the law is designed to let that person, and only that person, control whether the matter is aired in court.

On the complaint of the aggrieved party: Because reputation is a personal interest, the legislature deliberately kept the police out of defamation proceedings and vested the choice to prosecute solely in the person whose reputation was harmed. This is precisely why a personal complaint is mandated.
On the basis of an F.I.R: Allowing an F.I.R. would let the police initiate proceedings even without the aggrieved person's consent, defeating the purpose of keeping control of the prosecution in the victim's hands. This is why the law does not permit this route.
On the basis of a police report: A police report would similarly bypass the victim's discretion, since it results from an investigation the victim may not have wanted. Permitting this would undercut the very safeguard Section 199 is meant to provide.
Domestic affairs of a family: There is no rational basis to make the procedural mode contingent on whether the defamation is a family matter; the safeguard applies uniformly to every aggrieved person regardless of context.

The underlying rationale, that only the person actually harmed should decide whether to invoke the criminal process, aligns with only one of the given options.

Therefore, the correct answer is on the complaint of the aggrieved party.

Prosecution for the offence of defamation can be initiated only

Show Hint

The Correct Option is A

Approach Solution - 1

Approach Solution -2

Top Questions on Criminal Law

Questions Asked in AIBE exam