Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.M. SUNDRESH, ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.
Amita Singh - Appellant
Versus
The Wire Through Its Editor Siddharth Bhatia & Anr. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.1471 of 2024
Decided on : 24-07-2024
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 500[Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Section 356(2)] – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 204 and 482[Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 227 and 528] – Defamation – Issuance of summons – Publication of defamatory article – Section 204 of Cr.P.C. merely facilitates Magistrate who, upon entertaining a private complaint, has to proceed further by issuing summons for which purpose he has to satisfy existence of sufficient grounds – Magistrate has not looked into actual publication – Law does not prohibit him to look into the same and, on the contrary, he ought to have looked into it before issuing summons – Application filed invoking Section 311 of Cr.P.C. was also allowed, though subsequently – High Court has certainly exceeded its jurisdiction – Impugned order set aside by remitting issue of summons to Magistrate after duly taking note of publication said to have been made by respondents. (Paras 2, 3 and 4)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal lies in a very narrow compass. On an application filed invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, High Court in impugned judgment while finding fault with the reasoning adopted in issuing the summons, went ahead and decided the matter on merit inter alia holding that no case of defamation is made out.
Findings of Court:
Magistrate shall proceed with the matter afresh, without being influenced by any observation made by the High Court in the impugned judgment.
Result : Appeal disposed of with directions.
ORDER :
1 The appeal lies in a very narrow compass. On an application filed invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’), the High Court in the impugned judgment while finding fault with the reasoning adopted in issuing the summons, went ahead and decided the matter on merit inter alia holding that no case of defamation is made out.
2 Though, arguments have been made at length, we are of the view that the High Court has certainly exceeded its jurisdiction. Section 204 of the Cr.P.C., as it then was, merely facilitates a Magistrate who, upon entertaining a private complaint, has to proceed further by issuing summons for which purpose he has to satisfy the existence of sufficient grounds. In such view of the matter, we have no hesitation in setting aside the impugned order.
3. Suffice it is to state that the Learned Magistrate has not looked into the actual publication. Law does not prohibit him to look into the same and, on the contrary, he ought to have looked into it before issuing the summons. We may also note that, in any case, the application filed invoking Section 311 Cr.P.C. was also allowed, though subsequently.
4. In such view of the matter, without expressing anything on merits, we set aside the impugned order by remitting the issue of summons to the Learned Magistrate after duly taking note of the publication said to have been made by the respondents. It is made clear that we have not expressed anything on merits. While doing so, the Learned Magistrate shall proceed with the matter afresh, without being influenced by any observation made by the High Court in the impugned judgment.
5. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
6. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
Law does not prohibit Magistrate to look into private complaint to satisfy existence of sufficient grounds before issuing summons.
(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 court clarified the limited power of the Trial Court to recall summons and emphasized the need for respondents to challenge Summoning orders through appropriate legal remedies.
The trial Court must conduct a sufficient inquiry under Section 202 before summoning an accused for defamation, ensuring no abuse of process occurs.
High Court exceeded jurisdiction by quashing proceedings without establishing no prima facie case against the accused.
Point of law : Defamation - In case of criminal defamation neither any FIR can be filed nor can any direction be issued under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory requirement of conducting an inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before issuing process against an accused re....
Publication of true statements related to official proceedings cannot constitute defamation under IPC Section 500.
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
