The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of mens rea in causing harm to the reputation of a person for constituting defamation under Section 500 IPC.

Sunita Gupta, J.

1. This is a petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) for quashing of proceedings in Complaint Case No. 69/1 titled as Yash Mehra v. Arundhati Sapru under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) pending in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the respondent herein filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. for offence under Section 500 IPC alleging inter alia that accused and complainant got married on 12th July, 2011 according to Hindu rites and customs and several cases are pending between them in different Courts. Prior to the marriage with accused, the accused was married to Ms. Divya Mehra who expired on 11th June, 2000 and after her demise complainant got married to the accused. During subsistence of first marriage of the complainant with Ms. Divya Mehra, both of them adopted a son, namely, Pranav. Earlier divorce case pending between the complainant and accused was being heard by the Court of Sh. T.S. Kashyap, learned Additional District Judge wherein accused filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for grant of maintenance which was dismissed vide order dated 31st July, 2006. After the marriage of the accused with the complainant, accused has been making false allegations against Divya Mehra that she has physical affinities and relationship with people other than complainant. The aforesaid false allegations, regarding Divya Mehra having physical affinities, were made by the accused in front of various relatives and friends followed by an e-mail dated 30th July, 2010 containing remarks to various persons including Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, National Commission for Women, Mr. V. Moily (former Law Minister of India), various Ministers, Mr. Ashwani Kumar, U.S. Ambassador/ACS Chief and Mr. Satish Tamta and Mr. Mrigank Dutta. The contents of the remarks made by the accused in the said e-mail dated 30th July, 2010 were reproduced as follows:

“Further T.S. Kashyap dismissal of the 2005 HMA, 24 application in the lower court was timed with Kaul’s impending upholding of the mutual consent divorce in the high court in 2006. At that time I was aware that it was dragged out on purpose and that it was also because of his personal hatred for me due to his physical affinities with Yash Mehras first wife and adopted son.”

3. It was alleged that the first wife of the complainant Ms. Divya Mehra was a business women and was known well in her circle, respectable lady of the society, was carrying good reputation amongst her relatives and in the society. The complainant had very good relations with his first wife and was emotionally, sentimentally and psychologically attached to her. The aforesaid remarks made by the accused against late Ms. Divya Mehra are false, baseless and highly defamatory, inasmuch as, she has no physical affinity with anybody except the complainant. The aforesaid allegations and remarks have been made by the accused with the intention to defame Ms. Divya Mehra and the complainant as well as to hurt the feelings of complainant as he was quite attached to his first wife and held her in very high esteem. Because of the defamatory and derogatory remarks made by the accused, complainant as well as late Ms. Divya Mehra, have suffered in their reputation and both of them have been lowered in the estimation of their relatives, friends and general public. A legal notice dated 1st October, 2011 was sent to the accused calling upon her to pay a sum of Rs.30,00,000/-as damages and unconditional apology for defaming late Ms. Divya Mehra and complainant and severely hurting the feelings of the complainant. The respondent/complainant examined himself in pre-summoning evidence and reiterated the averments made in the complaint. He also proved e-mail Ex-CW1/A sent to various