Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 1061

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. ABDUL NAZEER, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.
Manoj Kumar Tiwari – Appellant
Versus
Manish Sisodia & Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1791 of 2022 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl) No.351 of 2021) with Criminal Appeal No. 1790 of 2022 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl) No.658 of 2021)
Decided On : 17-10-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the parties : Ms. Pinky Anand,Sr.Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, AOR Mr. Neeraj,Adv. Mr. Ankit Raj,Adv. Mr. Vijay Joshi,Adv. Mr. Kautilya Virat,Adv. Mr. Vedansh Anand,Adv. Mr. S.N.Verma,Adv. Ms. Smriti Singh,Adv. Ms. Saudamini Sharma, Adv. Mr. Shantanu Raj, Adv. Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, AOR Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shadan Farasat, AOR Mr. Bharat Gupta,Adv. Mr. Shourya Dasgupta,Adv. Ms. Hrishika Jain,Adv. Mr. Aman Naqvi,Adv. Mr. Dhruv Bhatnagar,Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Surender Kumar Gupta, AOR Mr. Neeraj, Adv. Mr. Chitvan Singhal,Adv. Mr. Amit Tiwari,Adv. Mr. Piyush Beriwal,Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, AOR

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Defamation – Defamatory statement should be specific and not very vague and general.
(2) It is a fundamental rule of criminal jurisprudence that if allegations contained in complaint, even if taken to be true, do not constitute offence complained, person accused should not be allowed to undergo ordeal of trial.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code 1860 – Sections 499 and 500 read with Sections 34 and 35 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 199 and 237 – Defamation – Order of summoning – It is a fundamental rule of criminal jurisprudence that if allegations contained in complaint, even if taken to be true, do not constitute offence complained, person accused should not be allowed to undergo ordeal of trial – Claim made by a person involved in politics that answers provided by his rival in public office to questions posed by him, will expose his scam, cannot be per se stated to be intended to harm reputation of person holding office – Even if a person belonging to a political party had challenged a person holding public office by stating “I will expose your scam”, same may not amount to defamation – Defamatory statement should be specific and not very vague and general – Essential ingredient of Section 499 is that imputation made by accused should have potential to harm reputation of person against whom imputation is made – Statement made by A-5 to the effect “your answer will disclose your scam” cannot be considered to be an imputation intending to harm or knowing or having reason to believe that it will harm reputation of respondent No.1 – Appeal filed by Shri A-5 is liable to succeed on t sole ground that statements contained in his tweets cannot be said to be defamatory within meaning of Section 499 of IPC – Order of summoning insofar as A-5 is concerned, set aside – However, complaint may proceed in respect of other accused. (Paras 58, 60, 62, 63 and 65)
Facts of the case:
Order of summoning issued by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-I, Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi, in a criminal complaint of defamation filed by Respondent No.1 herein against six individuals, was challenged before the High Court unsuccessfully, by persons arrayed as Accused Nos.1 and 5 and hence both of them have come up with instant Criminal Appeals.
Findings of Court:
Summoning Order dated 28.11.2019 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, did not go into the contents of the tweets made by Shri Vijender Gupta. To that extent, there was no application of mind on the part of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.
Result : Appeals Partly allowed.

JUDGMENT :

V. Ramasubramanian, J.

Leave granted.

2. The order of summoning issued by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-I, Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi, in a criminal complaint of defamation filed by Respondent No.1 herein against six individuals, was challenged before the High Court unsuccessfully, by persons arrayed as Accused Nos.1 and 5 and hence both of them have come up with the above Criminal Appeals.

3. We have heard Shri R. Venkataramani and Ms. Pinky Anand, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants and Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned senior counsel, as well as Shri Shadan Farasat, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1.

4. On 19.07.2019, Respondent No.1 herein filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C’) against six individuals, on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-I, Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi, alleging commission of the offences under Sections 499 and 500 read with Sections 34 and 35 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’). The case of Respondent No.1 in his complaint was, that he has been the Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi since February 2015; that on 01.07.2019, Shri Manoj Tiwari, (A-1 who is the appellant in one of these appeals) held a Press Conference making false and defamatory statements as though the complainant was involved in corruption to the tune of Rs. 2000 crores, in the matter of award of contracts for building classrooms in Delhi Government Schools; that persons arrayed as Accused Nos. 2 to 4 in the said complaint, shared the platform with the said Shri Manoj Tiwari, during the Press Conference and they also uttered the same defamation statements; that Shri Vijender Gupta, arrayed as Accused No.5 in the complaint (appellant in one of these appeals) tweeted defamatory contents against the complainant; and that the person named as Respondent No.6 in the complaint also made defamatory statements in his tweets. According to Respondent No.1 herein (the complainant), all the accused persons acted with common intent and in a well-thoughtout and planned manner to defame him, thereby rendering themselves liable for prosecution.

5. After recording the statements of Respondent No.1 and two independent witnesses, in the inquiry under Section 202(1) of the Cr.P.C and after taking note of the documents produced by Respondent No.1, the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate passed an Order on 28-11-2019 directing the issue of summons to all the six accused, after holding that there exists sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused Nos.1 to 4 under Section 500 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and against accused Nos.5 and 6 under Section 500 IPC.

6. The appellants herein (who were cited as accused Nos.1 and 5 respectively) challenged the order of summoning by way of petitions under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, before the High Court of Delhi. The High Court dismissed the petitions, forcing the appellants to come up with the above appeals.

7. Though the petitions filed by the appellants under Section 482 of the Code were dismissed by the High Court of Delhi by a common order, the cases of both of them are not exactly the same. Shri Manoj Kumar Tiwari (A-1), the appellant in one of these appeals, is accused along with Accused Nos. 2 to 4 of committing the offence punishable under Section 500 read with Section 34 IPC. But Shri Vijender Gupta (A-5) is accused of committing an offence punishable under Section 500 IPC alone. In paragraph 14 of the summoning order dated 28.11.2019, learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has recorded the following opinion:

“Further the exhortation by the respondents as to sharing of the statements and holding a joint conference together also strengthens the inference of common intention of the respondent no.1,2,3 and 4. As far as the tweets made by respondent no.5 and 6 concerned that have been made after few hours of the Press Conf