Back
2018 Supreme(Del) 3289
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
R.K. GAUBA, J.
XYZ – Petitioner
Versus
State & Ors. – Respondents
CRL. M.C. 2602 of 2013
Decided On : 19-12-2018
For the Petitioner:Mr. R.K. Handoo, Advocate with Mr. Mansih Shukla, Mr. Aditya Choudhary, & Mr. Yoginder Handoo, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr. K.S. Ahuja, APP with SI Ranjeet Singh, PS Tughlaq Road. Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Advocate with Mr. Kartik Yadav, Ms. Neha Sarna, Ms. Jhanvi Dubey, & Mr. Kirat Nagra, Advs.
The main legal point established is the requirement of intention to cause harm for the offence of defamation, the limited application of the doctrine of innuendo, and the need for restraint in choice of words in public discourse.
Headnote:
Defamation - Political Debate - Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Sections 499, 500, 509 - The court discussed the elements of defamation and the intention to cause harm, as well as the application of the doctrine of innuendo and the need for restraint in choice of words in public discourse.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner and the second respondent, both active in politics, engaged in a heated verbal exchange during a televised political debate, leading to criminal complaints of defamation under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's statements prima facie constituted defamatory insinuations intended to harm the reputation of the second respondent, and the inclusion of the offence under Section 509 IPC in the summoning order was justified.
Issues: The issues included the elements of defamation, the application of the doctrine of innuendo, the need for restraint in public discourse, and the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Magistrate to include additional offences in the summoning order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the intention to cause harm is essential for the offence of defamation, and the doctrine of innuendo cannot be applied based on inferential evidence. It also emphasized the need for restraint in choice of words in public discourse.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the interim order earlier granted was vacated.
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner and the second respondent have been in public life for quite long, engaged in active politics, they being associated with political parties that generally have been seen to be opposed to each other. In their interest, their names are being withheld from mention, including in the cause-title. In the wake of results of the elections to legislative assembly of a State being announced, both had participated in a debate on a private television network channel on 20.12.2012, there also being other participants to the debate, the discussion and exchange of views being moderated by an anchor representing the news channel, the programme being telecast live, the parties herein being virtually present from their respective residence in New Delhi. Both the petitioner, and the second respondent, came to be involved in a verbal exchange in the course of the said TV debate, such exchange having been carried live over the network, the same being referred by each of them to institute criminal complaint cases against the other alleging defamation, an offence punishable under Section 500 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), having been committed.
2. On the basis of separate preliminary inquiries into the said criminal complaints, the courts of Metropolitan Magistrate have summoned the opposite party to appear as accused, each side having approached this Court invoking the inherent power and jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC) praying for quashing of the said criminal process on the plea that it is an abuse of the process of law.
3. Both the above-said petitions came up before the Court simultaneously for final hearing. Since they arise out of different criminal cases and against separate summoning orders, they are being decided by separate judgments, albeit simultaneously. Since the background facts are almost common, for the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to by their status in the proceedings.
4. The criminal complaint case (CC No. 01/01/2013) was instituted by the second respondent (complainant), against the petitioner, on 01.01.2013 in the wake of a legal notice sent on her behalf on 21.12.2012 to which the latter (accused-petitioner) had responded by a reply through counsel on 22.12.2012, this being followed by a letter dated 24.12.2012 sent by counsel of former it, in turn, being responded by a letter dated 31.12.2012 of the counsel for the petitioner.
5. In the course of pre-summoning inquiry in above said case, the complainant examined herself (as CW-1) besides examining an acquaintance (CW-2), and senior executive editor (CW-3) of the news channel. Through CW-3, a compact disk (CD) containing the recording of the TV debate (Ex.CW-3/A) with certificates (Ex.CW-3/B and C) was brought on record. The Metropolitan Magistrate, by his order dated 11.03.2013, found grounds to proceed against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 499 and 509 of IPC. The said order is subject matter of challenge in the petition at hand.
6. Against the same very backdrop, in the wake of exchange of legal notice, reply and letters of the two counsel on both sides as referred to above, the petitioner herein presented his own criminal complaint (CC no. 29/1A/2014), on 11.10.2013, alleging offence under Section 499 IPC having been committed by the second respondent. For preliminary inquiry, he examined himself (as CW-1), besides examining an acquaintance (CW-2), also relying on the evidence of senior legal executive (court witness) of the news channel through whom, inter alia, record of the TV debate in the form of CD (Ex.CWA/2) along with certificate (Ex.CWA/3) were brought on record. Upon consideration of the said material, the Metropolitan Magistrate, by his order dated 06.06.2014 found grounds to proceed against the second respondent for the offence under Section 500 IPC and, thus, summoning her to appear as accused. The said order is under challenge by Crl.M.C. 2997
