The Calcutta High Court on Wednesday observed that writing a letter to the husband’s superior at work in good faith intimating him about a criminal case lodged against the husband for inflicting torture would not amount to criminal defamation under Section 499 of the IPC.

In the instant case, the wife (petitioner) had written a letter dated May 24, 1997 to the Manager, Indian Overseas Bank intimating him that her husband who was the Assistant Manager of Overseas Bank had tortured her and driven her out of the matrimonial home and that a criminal case under Section 498A CrPC (cruelty) had been initiated against him following which he had been arrested and subsequently released on bail. The petitioner had enclosed a certified copy of the order and had requested the Manager to take such action as may be deemed fit under the facts and circumstances.

Justice Ananda Kumar Mukherjee noted that the petitioner in her letter had made representation of facts which were consistent with the incidents relating to filling of cases for alleged torture.

He further noted that there was matrimonial discord between the petitioner and her husband to such an extent that the wife was compelled to leave her husband’s home with her minor daughter.

The Court remarked further,

“This incident itself would heap insult and indignation upon a married lady having a child. Under such oppressive conditions it is only obvious that the petitioner would take recourse to writing such letter to Official Heads of the opposite party. The petitioner wife cannot be faulted for taking recourse to law of the land for protection of herself and her daughter. She should have her right to ventilate her grievance as her human dignity was at peril.”

It was also noted that any representation made by a person in good faith for protecting his/her own interest would not amount to defamation as the Ninth Exception under Section 499 IPC protects imputations made in good faith by person for protection of his or other’s interests.

It was further taken into consideration that the letter had been addressed to the husband’s superiors on May 24, 1997 whereas the complaint had been filed by the husband against the petitioner for criminal defamation only on June 8, 2009 that is twelve long years after the cause of action arose.

It was further held that the complaint filed under Section 200 CrPC by the husband against the petitioner alleging the offence of criminal defamation is barred by the law of limitation under Section 468 CrPC. Pursuant to Section 469(1)(a) of the CrPC, the period of limitation for taking cognizance in an offence under section 500 of IPC is three years from the date of its initiation.

Thus, the Court set aside the complaint lodged by the husband against the petitioner for the offence of defamation by observing that the same is barred by limitation and thus a continuation of such proceedings would lead to an abuse of the process of Court.