Back
BELA M. TRIVEDI, DIPANKAR DATTA
Iveco Magirus Brandschutztechnik Gmbh – Appellant
Versus
Nirmal Kishore Bhartiya – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
DIPANKAR DATTA, J.
THE APPEAL
1. This appeal, by special leave, is at the instance of a German company (“the appellant” hereafter). It assails a short five-line order of a learned Judge of the High Court of Delhi (“learned Judge” hereafter) dated 10th December 2010. By such order, the learned Judge dismissed a petition1 [Crl. M.C. No. 2845/2010] under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr. P.C.” hereafter) presented by the appellant as not maintainable relying on the decision of this Court in Iridium India Telecom Ltd. vs. Motorola Incorporated and Others, (2011) 1 SCC 74 and a Bench decision of the High Court of Delhi in Morgan Tetronics Ltd. vs. State and Another, LPA No. 668/2010 dated 17th September 2010.
CHALLENGE BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
2. Appellant had approached the High Court of Delhi taking exception to an order dated 25th March 2010 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (SE), New Delhi (“Trial Court” hereafter) on a complaint2 [C.C. No. 465/1/09] lodged under section 200, Cr.P.C. by the respondent (“complainant” hereafter). The Trial Court upon considering the complaint returned a prima facie finding in the said order that
(1) Magistrate while deciding whether to issue process is entitled to form a view looking into materials before him.(2) Defamation – If from evidence led it is established that authorised agent had i....
The trial Court must conduct a sufficient inquiry under Section 202 before summoning an accused for defamation, ensuring no abuse of process occurs.
Publication of true statements related to official proceedings cannot constitute defamation under IPC Section 500.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of exception 8 to Section 499 of the IPC, emphasizing the need for good faith and lawful authority in making accusations and the....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the jurisdiction for trying cases of defamation is determined based on the place where the offense occurred, as per the provisions of the CrPC....
Complaint filed by the respondent No.2 would be barred by Section 300 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code being successive prosecution as for the very set of allegations, earlier complaint filed by th....
Admissibility of electronic records under section 65B of the Evidence Act and careful assessment before issuing summons in a defamation case.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
