Admissibility of electronic records under section 65B of the Evidence Act and careful assessment before issuing summons in a defamation case.

JUDGMENT

Anup Jairam Bhambhani J.

By way of the present petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.. for short) read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek quashing of summoning order dated 07.01.2017 made by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, whereby the petitioners/accused have been summonsed to face trial in CC No. 32203-16 filed by the respondent/complainant alleging offences under sections 499/500/501 and 502 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC. for short).

2. The petitioners impugn the summoning order on various grounds, as detailed in this judgement, the principal contention being that there was no material on record on the basis of which the learned Magistrate could have summonsed the petitioners.

3. The court has heard Ms. Nitya Ramakrishnan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners; and Mr. Alok Kumar Rai, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. The court has also heard Professor Amita Singh, the respondent in-person.

4. Briefly, the factual matrix relevant for purposes of the present petition is the following :

4.1. The criminal complaint alleges offences punishable under sections 499/500/501/502 IPC arising from a publication carried on the on-line news portal "The Wire" on 26.04.2016 ('subject publication.). The criminal complaint as filed, arrays 11 persons as accused. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 ('A1. and 'A2.) are respectively the Editor and the Deputy Editor of The Wire; and Accused Nos. 3 to 11 are other persons, including a politician, two assistant professors, two other major publications, two students, an SHO and a website;

4.2. The complainant, who is a Professor at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi ('JNU.) had prayed for the court to take cognizance of offences punishable under sections 499/500/501/502 IPC against all accused persons, and for issuance of a direction to the SHO P.S.: Vasant Kunj, North to investigate the matter and take action in accordance with law;

4.3. The learned Magistrate recorded the depositions of 05 witnesses on behalf of the complainant, viz. CW-1: the complainant herself, CW-2: Professor Bupinder Zutshi, CW-3: Dr. Rahila Sikandar, CW-4: Nazia Khan and CW-5: Manu Singh;

4.4. Vide order dated 07.01.2017 the learned Magistrate was pleased to issue summons - only to A1 and A2 - and to none of the other accused persons. It is the said two accused persons who have filed the present petition.

5. The relevant discussion appearing in order dated 07.01.2017, based on which the learned Magistrate proceeds to summons the petitioners as the only accused persons, is the following :

"This is a complaint made by the complainant Amita Singh, who claims to be a Professor and the Chairperson of Centre for Study of Law and Governance (JNU), u/s 500/501/502 IPC against certain accused persons for imputing that she (complainant) prepared a dossier allegedly depicting that Jawahar Lal Nehru University is a "Den of Organised Sex Racket". Complainant claims that she did not prepare any such dossier. It is claimed by the complainant that the said imputation was firstly made in an e-magazine "The Wire" and thereafter the other accused persons, arrayed in the list of parties, circulated/re-circulated/tweeted/retweeted the above imputation, published by the said magazine, with their comments which were also defamatory in nature. She further claims that she is a victim of a hate campaign which has begun after the publication of false information by the e-magazine, "The Wire".

* * * * *

"The complainant has placed on record computer printouts of the said publication (in the e-magazine, "The-Wire") in order to substantiate her allegations.

* * * * *

"It is pertinent to mention here that all the above mentioned documents are actually copies of electronic records. In order for the said documents to be read in evidence, the complainant is supposed to prove a certificate u/s 65-B of the Evid