IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, J.
Business Standard Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Lohitaksha Shukla & Anr. - Respondents
Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 621 of 2017, 2120 of 2017; Criminal Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2665 of 2017, 7817 of 2019, 8715 of 2017, 7838 of 2019
Decided On : 01-03-2021
Defamation - Quashing of Summoning Order - Sections 203/204 Cr.P.C., Section 499 IPC - The court discussed the provisions of Section 499 IPC and its Explanation 4, and highlighted the requirement that an imputation must lower the moral or intellectual character of a person to constitute defamation. The court also emphasized the need for the complainant to be an 'aggrieved person' within the meaning of Section 199(1) Cr.P.C. The judgment referred to various decisions to support the interpretation of the legal provisions and concluded that the complaint was not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, an Advocate and member of RSS, filed a complaint alleging defamation based on an article published in a newspaper. The trial court summoned the accused based on the complaint.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant failed to establish how his reputation was harmed or his moral or intellectual character was lowered as a result of the article. It also noted that the complainant did not prove his membership in RSS, and therefore, was not an 'aggrieved person' within the meaning of the law.
Issues: The issues revolved around the interpretation of defamation under Section 499 IPC, the requirement of the complainant being an 'aggrieved person' under Section 199(1) Cr.P.C., and the need for evidence to establish defamation and the complainant's membership in RSS.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 499 IPC and its Explanation 4, as well as the requirement of the complainant being an 'aggrieved person' under Section 199(1) Cr.P.C. It emphasized the need for evidence to establish defamation and the complainant's membership in RSS.
Final Decision: The court held that the complaint was not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. Consequently, the proceedings emanating there-from were also quashed.
JUDGMENT
Suresh Kumar Kait, J. - Petitioners in the above captioned two petitions are seeking quashing of order dated 08.08.2016 as well as Complaint Case No. 631499/2016 (CC No.2614/2016), titled as Lohitaksha Shukla Vs. Business Standard Private Limited & Ors., pending before the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket Court, New Delhi.
2. The basis of the complaint is an article titled as "The Long and Short of it" which was published on 18.03.2016 in the newspaper of petitionerBusiness Standard and was also available on the website, under the authorship of Mitali Saran.
3. In the first captioned petition [Crl.M.C. 621/2017], petitioner No.1 is Business Standard Private Limited, who is running a newspaper under the name and style of "Business Standard" and petitioner No.2- A.K. Bhattacharya is the Editorial Director. In the said petition, respondent No.1- Lohitaksha Shukla is the complainant and respondent No.2- Mitali Saran is the author of the article.
4. The above captioned second petition [Crl.M.C.2120/2017] is preferred by the author Mitali Saran and respondents therein are the complainant- Lohitaksha Shukla, Business Standard Private Limited and Editorial Director- A.K. Bhattacharya.
5. Since both the petitions pertain to one common complaint and parties to both the petitions are similar, therefore, with the consent of both the sides, these petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
6. Complainant- Lohitaksha Shukla, who is an Advocate by profession, has averred that he was informed about the factum of publication of the article by his friends. In the complaint, he has alleged that the article is not based on facts and contains some defamatory insinuations against RSS and its members, as it accused members of RSS being oppressive to Indians, mentally disturbed and disrespectful to Indian National Symbols ridden with psycho sexual complexes, practitioners of discrimination based on caste and physically unfit. Complainant has averred that being a member of RSS, his reputation has been adversely affected.
7. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, after examining the complainant in the pre-summoning evidence and considering the provisions of Sections 203/204 Cr.P.C. as well as Section 499 IPC, held as under:-
"In view of the same, I find that there is sufficient material for summoning the accused no.1, 2 and 3 u/s 500 IPC. Hence, accused above said are summoned on filing of PF/RC within a week from today along with supply of copy of complaint and documents for as many as accused are summoned for 21.11.2016."
8. Quashing of the aforesaid summoning order as well as complaint, is sought by petitioners- Business Standard Private Limited and Editorial Director- A.K. Bhattacharya [in Crl.M.C. 621/2017] on the ground that if a Magistrate were to take cognizance of the offence of defamation on a complaint filed by one who is not an "aggrieved person", the trial and conviction of an accused in such a case by the Magistrate would be void and illegal. To seek quashing of the complaint, it is submitted that it is absolute abuse of process of law and it has been filed to harass the petitioners. In particular, petitioner No.2 has averred that the allegation of complainant that he was 'Editor in Chief' of petitioner No.1 at the time of publication of article is baseless, as he has never been 'Editor in Chief' of petitioner No.1.
9. It is averred that the complainant is not "person aggrieved" within the meaning of Section 199(1) Cr.P.C. and hence, is not competent to institute a private complaint and even if the complaint is taken on the face value, the same does not disclose any offence whatsoever which falls within the ambit of Sections 499 and 500 IPC.
10. In support of aforesaid submissions, learned counsel appearing for Business Standard Private Limited and Editorial Director- A.K. Bhattacharya, relied upon Hon'ble Supreme Court's decisions in S. Khushboo Vs. Kanniammal & Anr, (2010) 5 SCC 600; decision of
Abhijit Pawar vs. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar & Anr
Abhishek Agrawalla vs. Boortmalt NV & Anr
G. Narasimhan, G. Kaswturi & K.Gopalan vs. T.V. Chokkappa
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for an imputation to lower the moral or intellectual character of a person to constitute defamation under Section 499 IPC. Addition....
The judgment establishes the importance of specific averments in a complaint, compliance with the mandatory provisions of Cr.P.C., and the necessity of conducting an inquiry before issuing process.
Publication of true statements related to official proceedings cannot constitute defamation under IPC Section 500.
(1) Defamation – ”BJP” is a determinate and identifiable body and complaint for defamation under Section 500 IPC is maintainable.(2) Defamation – Right of a person against whom offence of defamation ....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of exception 8 to Section 499 of the IPC, emphasizing the need for good faith and lawful authority in making accusations and the....
A defamation claim requires clear evidence that the statement harmed the complainant's reputation in the eyes of others, which was not established in this case.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.