Delhi High Court Allows Defamation Case to Proceed, Dismissing Stay Plea Over Limitation and Pending FIR

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has declined to stay the proceedings in a private criminal complaint alleging defamation against politician Manjinder Singh Sirsa and others, dismissing arguments related to limitation and the pendency of a police investigation (FIR) concerning related allegations.

The ruling was delivered by the bench of Hon'ble Ms. Justice Swarana KantaSharma on January 24, 2024, on an application seeking an ad-interim stay in a petition challenging the summoning order issued by a Magistrate and a subsequent revisional order upholding the summons.

Background of the Case

The case originates from a private complaint filed by Manjit Singh GK against Manjinder Singh Sirsa , Harmeet Singh Kalka, and Jagdeep Singh Kahlon, alleging defamation. Summons were issued to the accused persons by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) on June 30, 2023. This order was challenged in a criminal revision petition, which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) on November 29, 2023. The present petition before the High Court (CRL.M.C. 316/2024) challenges the ASJ's order. The current application sought a stay on the trial court proceedings during the pendency of this High Court petition.

Petitioner's Arguments for Stay

Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. N. Hariharan , argued that the complaint was a misuse of court process, filed with malafide intentions. Key contentions raised were:

• Limitation: The alleged defamation occurred primarily in February 2020, which the complainant admittedly knew about. The complaint, filed over three years later, is time-barred, and no condonation of delay was sought or explained.
• Section 210 Cr.P.C.: A police investigation (FIR) is ongoing regarding the letter dated April 4, 2016, which is linked to the alleged defamation (concerning land usurpation). Under Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Magistrate was bound to stay the private complaint proceedings when made aware of the parallel police investigation into the "same offence".

Respondent's Counter-Arguments

Senior Counsel for the respondent/complainant, Mr. Mohit Mathur , opposed the stay, submitting that the petitioner was employing delaying tactics. He countered the arguments by stating:

• Limitation: The ASJ correctly held that the defamation allegations were not confined to February 2020 but included incidents from 2022 and 2023, with defamatory videos and social media posts still available online. The offence was continuing.
• Section 210 Cr.P.C.: The FIR (No. 08/2023) was registered based on the complainant's own application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and is for offences of cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy (Sections 420/468/471/120B IPC) related to the forged letter. The private complaint is specifically for defamation (Sections 499/500 IPC). The offences are distinct, and Section 210 applies only when the police investigation is for the "same offence" as the private complaint. Furthermore, cognizance for defamation can only be taken on a private complaint, not a police report, reinforcing the distinction.
• The complaint details numerous defamatory statements made between 2020 and 2023, not just those linked to the 2016 letter.

Court's Reasoning and Decision

Justice Sharma considered the arguments and the material on record, including the detailed order of the ASJ.

On the issue of limitation , the High Court found, prima facie, that the complaint included allegations of defamation spanning from 2020 to 2023, citing specific instances mentioned in paragraph 16 of the complaint from January 2023 and a press conference from 2022. The court noted the complainant's argument that defamatory content remained available online. Based on this, the court did not find the complaint to be prima facie time-barred or the ASJ's observations on this point infirm.

Regarding Section 210 Cr.P.C. , the court upheld the ASJ's reasoning. It noted that the FIR was registered for offences under Sections 420/468/471/120B IPC (cheating, forgery, etc.), while the private complaint was for defamation (Sections 499/500 IPC). The court emphasized that Section 210 applies when the police investigation is for the same offence as the subject matter of the private complaint. Since the offences were different, and cognizance for defamation can only be taken on a complaint, Section 210 was inapplicable. The court also noted that the defamation complaint was not solely based on the allegations related to the 2016 letter but on several statements made between 2020 and 2023.

Consequently, the High Court concluded that, at this stage and without delving deep into the merits of the main petition, there were no sufficient grounds to stay the proceedings before the Trial Court.

The application for stay (CRL.M.A. 1201/2024) was accordingly dismissed. The court clarified that these observations are only prima facie and will not prejudice either party during the hearing of the main petition or the trial. Notice has already been issued in the main petition (CRL.M.C. 316/2024), which remains pending.

The judgment reinforces the distinction between different criminal proceedings and the specific requirements for applying Section 210 of the Cr.P.C., particularly concerning offences that can only be initiated through a private complaint, such as defamation.