Back
Quashes Defamation Case Against for Lack of Material
In a significant ruling reinforcing the evidentiary threshold for , the has quashed the and entire criminal proceedings against senior advocate and former Member of Parliament . Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, in a judgment delivered on , held that the complainant failed to produce any material that could establish that the alleged defamatory remarks had lowered his reputation in the estimation of others—a mandatory requirement under .
The case originated from a complaint filed in 2019 by Siddhartha Singh , who alleged that Misra had called him a “crook” and a “blackmailer” in an interview published on the news portal on . Singh claimed the remarks damaged his reputation and affected his professional life. The trial court at had summoned Misra under , finding sufficient grounds to proceed.
A Case Built on Shaky Ground
The dispute had its roots in an earlier complaint by Singh before the , accusing Misra of professional misconduct for appearing on behalf of power distribution companies before the . When the reported on that complaint in , Misra responded by calling Singh a “crook.” That remark led to a separate defamation case (Complaint Case No. 11/2019). However, the present case concerned a second complaint filed on , based on an interview Misra allegedly gave to , where he again used the words “crook” and “blackmailer.”
Misra challenged the , arguing he never gave any such interview and had written to the editor of seeking a clarification. His counsel, Senior Advocate , contended that the complaint was based on a downloaded online article that was neither proved through its reporter nor accompanied by the mandatory certificate under .
The Missing Witness
The core of the court’s reasoning centered on Explanation 4 to Section 499 IPC, which defines defamation as an imputation that harms a person’s reputation in the estimation of others. The court noted that Singh examined only himself during the and produced no other witness to demonstrate that the alleged words had actually lowered his standing in society.
“The allegation that the publication caused damage to his reputation, by itself, remains an assertion of the complainant and does not establish the statutory requirement contemplated by Explanation 4 to Section 499 IPC,” Justice Sharma observed.
Citing the ’s decisions in and , the High Court reiterated that the essence of defamation lies not merely in making an imputation but in its effect on public perception. The court also relied on its own coordinate bench’s ruling in , which held that a complainant examining himself as the sole witness without producing any person to whom the material was published cannot sustain a defamation case.
No Proof of Publication
Another critical flaw identified by the court was the lack of admissible evidence linking Misra to the alleged interview. The material placed before the magistrate did not include examination of the reporter, author, editor, or any person associated with who could confirm that the words were actually uttered by the petitioner. Notably, Singh later arrayed the editor/owner of the news portal as an accused—a step that further highlighted the absence of direct evidence against Misra.
“Apart from the publication itself, there was no independent material before the learned ACMM connecting the alleged statement with the petitioner,” the court noted, drawing support from the ’s decision in , which held that a newspaper report is unless duly proved.
Precedents on Defamation
The court also referred to and , both of which underscored the necessity of examining witnesses to establish . In Ram SS Parihar , the had observed that summoning an accused based solely on the complainant’s evidence is a mechanical exercise that cannot be sustained.
“The limited nature of the inquiry at such stage cannot dispense with the requirement that the basic ingredients of the offence must be disclosed from the material placed before the Court,” Justice Sharma wrote.
Final Verdict: Quashed
The court further noted that Singh had remained absent on multiple occasions, both before the trial court and the High Court, leading to delays and frustration of the proceedings. Citing these “peculiar facts and circumstances,” the court concluded that continuing the criminal trial would not serve the ends of justice and would subject Misra to an unnecessary rigour.
Exercising its inherent powers under , the High Court quashed the and all consequential proceedings. The judgment, which was reserved on , and uploaded on , effectively brings the three-year-long legal battle to a close.
With this ruling, the has reinforced the principle that cannot be used as a tool for harassment, and that the foundational requirement of must be evident from the very beginning of the proceedings.
