IMPORTANT POINT
Defamation – Every prosecution for defamation cannot be quashed on the ground that offending allegations have been withdrawn – However, criminal case quashed for doing complete justice between parties.

JUDGMENT :

ABHAY S. OKA, J.

FACTUAL ASPECTS

1. The respondent filed a private complaint against the petitioner in the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, alleging commission of the offence under Section 499, which is punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘the IPC’). The learned Magistrate issued a summons on 28th August 2023. The present petition seeks a transfer of the complaint from the Court in Ahmedabad to a Court in Delhi.

2. The complaint is based on the utterances of the petitioner, which formed part of a public statement made by the petitioner on 22nd March 2023, which was reported by both electronic and print media. It is alleged in the complaint that the petitioner made a public statement to the following effect:

“Jo bhi do thug hai na, jo thug hai, thug ko anumati jo hai, aaj ke desh ke condition me dekha jaye then only Gujarati hi thug ho sakte hai, aur uske thug ko maaf kiya jayega. LIC ko paisa do, bank ko paisa do, fir wo log le ke bhag jayenge, to kaun jimmedaar hoga?”

The respondent relied upon a pen drive of a video of the petitioner's statement appearing on YouTube. The case made out by the respondent is that by the above utterances, the petitioner has defamed the Gujarati people and the entire society of Gujarat. His contention is that the petitioner described all Gujarati people as “thugs.” According to the case made out in the complaint, as a result of the said utterances, people from other societies have started looking upon Gujaratis as crooks and criminals. When the complaint was filed, the petitioner was the Deputy Chief Minister of Bihar.

3. This Court issued notice on 6th November 2023 and granted a stay of proceedings of the Complaint. At that time, the statement of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner was recorded that he would seek necessary instructions from the petitioner. The petitioner filed an affidavit dated 18th January 2024. Paragraphs 1 to 4 of the said affidavit read thus:

“1. At the outset, I wish to clarify that qua that part of the speech that is alleged to be defamatory, it was made in the context of a question asked to me with respect to the Red Corner notice issued against Mehul Choksi which has been revoked. In that context, I was asked whether the CBI has failed to bring back Mehul Choksi to India. I was responding to the failure of CBI to deal with such alleged swindlers.

2. My answer was in response to this specific question. I wondered how such swindlers were allowed to operate in India in the fashion that they did and in that context, I referred to the expression Gujarati and said “Only Gujarati may be swindler and these swindlers may be exonerated.” I further said, “If provide the money of LIC and provide money of the bank to the swindlers then these swindlers will take money and ran away, who shall be responsible?”

3. My statement has been interpreted to mean that I intentionally wanted to defame Gujaratis as a community. This is far from the truth. I hold Gujaratis, as a community in great esteem and have no against them. Further want to state greatest gift to the mankind i.e. our great Mahatma Gandhi was from Gujarat. I had no intentions to defame Gujaratis as a community. However, if any Gujarati feels that I by using the expression noted above hurt their sentiments, that certainly was not my intention.

4. Therefore, I unconditionally withdraw that part of my statement made on 22.03.2023 in which I use the expression that only “Only Gujarati may be swindler and these swindlers may be exonerated.”

(Underline supplied)

4. On 29th January 2024, when this petition was heard, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent pointed out that the petitioner had not withdrawn his entire offending statement. Therefore, the petitioner filed another affidavit dated 31st January 2024. Paragraphs 4 to 6 thereof read thus:

“4. Therefore, I unconditionally withdraw that part of my statement made on 22.03.2023 in which I u