Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
ANU MALHOTRA, J.
Manoj Kumar Tiwari & Another - Appellants
Versus
Manish Sisodia & Others - Respondents
Crl.M.C. Nos. 2342, 2355 of 2020 & Crl.M.A. Nos. 16482, 16590 of 2020
Decided on : 17-12-2020
The Delhi High Court quashed the summoning order issued by the Trial Court against the petitioners in a defamation case. The petitioners, who were politicians, had made certain statements in a press conference and on social media alleging corruption in the construction of school buildings by the complainant, who was a Deputy Chief Minister. The complainant filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., alleging that the petitioners had made false and defamatory statements against him with the intention to harm his reputation. The Trial Court, after examining the evidence adduced by the complainant, summoned the petitioners to face trial for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 500/34 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who were politicians, had made certain statements in a press conference and on social media alleging corruption in the construction of school buildings by the complainant, who was a Deputy Chief Minister. The complainant filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., alleging that the petitioners had made false and defamatory statements against him with the intention to harm his reputation. The Trial Court, after examining the evidence adduced by the complainant, summoned the petitioners to face trial for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 500/34 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Trial Court had erred in summoning the petitioners without considering the provisions of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which deals with the admissibility of electronic records. The Court observed that the complainant had produced a CD and a pen drive containing the video recording of the press conference and the alleged defamatory tweets, but he had not produced the requisite certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act to prove the authenticity and genuineness of the electronic records. The Court further held that the statements made by the petitioners in the press conference and on social media were not per se defamatory and that the petitioners had a right to express their opinions on matters of public interest. The Court also noted that the petitioners had not made any personal attacks on the complainant and that they had merely sought clarification from the government officials regarding the alleged corruption.
Issues: 1. Whether the Trial Court erred in summoning the petitioners without considering the provisions of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872? 2. Whether the statements made by the petitioners in the press conference and on social media were per se defamatory? 3. Whether the petitioners had a right to express their opinions on matters of public interest?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court held that the Trial Court had erred in summoning the petitioners without considering the provisions of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which deals with the admissibility of electronic records. The Court observed that the complainant had produced a CD and a pen drive containing the video recording of the press conference and the alleged defamatory tweets, but he had not produced the requisite certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act to prove the authenticity and genuineness of the electronic records. 2. The High Court held that the statements made by the petitioners in the press conference and on social media were not per se defamatory. The Court observed that the petitioners had merely expressed their opinions on matters of public interest and that they had not made any personal attacks on the complainant. 3. The High Court held that the petitioners had a right to express their opinions on matters of public interest. The Court observed that the petitioners had merely sought clarification from the government officials regarding the alleged corruption and that they had not made any personal attacks on the complainant.
Final Decision: The High Court quashed the summoning order issued by the Trial Court against the petitioners.
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner of Crl.M.C.No.2342/2020 vide the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks the setting aside and quashing of the summoning order dated 28.11.2019 of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-1, Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi in CC No. 51/2019, and the proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. The submissions qua the petition Crl.M.C.No.2342/2020 were made on behalf of the petitioner by Ms.Pinky Anand learned senior counsel, on behalf of the respondent No.1/the complainant, Mr.Vikas Pahwa, learned Senior counsel and by Mr.Rahul Mehra, senior standing counsel for the State, NCT of Delhi.
3. So far no notice of the petition had been issued to the respondents No.1 and 2 who were present on advance notice. Respondents No. 3 to 7 arrayed to the petition are proforma parties to the present petition. Petitioner No.6 arrayed in the present memo of parties is the petitioner of Crl.M.C. No. 2355/2020 who too has assailed the same impugned order though the contours of the aspect of summoning in relation to both i.e., the petitioner herein (CrlM.C. No. 2342/2020) and the petitioner of Crl.M.C. No. 2355/2020 are at some variance. However, it is considered appropriate to dispose of both the petitions by a common judgment/order as some of the issues involved are materially common and both the petitions relate to the alleged acts of respondent No.1 arrayed to the Crl.M.C. No. 2342/2020 who is arrayed as respondent No.2 in Crl.M.C. No. 2355/2020. Submissions on behalf of the petitioner in Crl.M.C. No. 2355/2020 were made by the learned counsel Ms. Sonia Mathur, learned senior counsel for the petitioner in Crl.M.C. No. 2355/2020 and the respondents therein were represented by Mr.Rahul Mehra, learned Senior Standing Counsel (for the State) and Mr. Vikas Pahwa learned senior counsel (for respondent No.2 in Crl.M.C. No. 2355/2020) respectively, respondents No.3 to 5 arrayed to Crl.M.C. No. 2355/2020, are also arrayed as proforma parties to the said petition.
4. The complaint case No. 51/2019 emanates from a complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 filed by Mr.Manish Sisodia, complainant therein, seeking action against Mr.Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Mr.Parvesh Sahib Singh Verma, Mr.Hans Raj Hans, Harish Khurana, Mr. Vijender Gupta and Mr.Manjinder Sirsa and seeks the issuance of summons to the said persons arrayed as accused Nos. 1 to 6 respectively for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 499 & 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with 34 and 35 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The complainant has submitted that he is a politician with impeccable integrity and honesty and is a devoted social worker who has served for the benefit of the common people and has been the Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi since February, 2015 and has been holding portfolios as a Minister for Education, Finance, Planning, Tourism, Land & Building, Services, Women & Child, Art, Culture and Languages Department in the Government of NCT of Delhi and is a Cabinet Minister in the Government of Delhi. The complainant had further submitted through his complaint that he has also worked as an RTI Activist and Journalist and his stupendous work in the Education Centre of the Government of NCT of Delhi has been acknowledged by him being awarded the Finest Education Minister award on 11.12.2017 by the former President of the country, Mr.Pranab Mukherjee. The complainant has further submitted that his services to people as a Deputy Minister and his strong journalism and social activism has earned him respect and recognition amongst the public and community at large for his honesty, integrity and professionalism in his professional and public life. The complainant has submitted that he has always remained concerned about his reputation, credibility and has always conducted himself with utmost probity and integrity in each o
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
