IMPORTANT POINT
The doctrine of absolute privilege protects utterances made in Court during judicial proceedings, and claims for defamation involving such utterances are not recognized by the Court.

JUDGMENT

Rajiv Shakdher, J. - Prefatory facts:

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 09.02.2023 rendered by the learned Single Judge. Via the impugned judgement, the learned Single Judge has rejected the plaint instituted by the appellant.

2. The appellant instituted a defamation action against the respondent, who is a senior advocate, for the following utterances, allegedly made by him in proceedings held on 14.07.2022 before the Sessions Court, Patiala House Courts:

"Plaintiff has used unparliamentary language and abused his mother during mediation proceedings."

3. The statement is claimed to have been made in the proceedings carried on in criminal revision petition no. 554/2018. The appellant instituted the criminal revision proceedings to assail the order dated 13.08.2018 passed by the concerned Magistrate. Via the order dated 13.08.2018, the learned Magistrate had disposed of the appellant's application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereafter referred to as "Cr.P.C."], which propelled the appellant to file the criminal revision proceedings.

4. In the application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. preferred before the learned Magistrate, the appellant had alleged that the accused persons had refused to transfer, in his favour, the shares held in Oswal Agro Mills Limited [O.A.M.L.] and Oswal Greentech Limited [O.G.L.] by his father, Abhey Kumar Oswal, who had died intestate.

4.1 According to the appellant, since he was a class-I heir, he was entitled to a share in his late father's estate, which included shares held in O.A.M.L. and O.G.L. The contention was that his mother, i.e. accused no.1, was a nominee of deceased Abhey Kumar Oswal and, hence, in law, was required to divide and distribute the shares among the legal heirs.

5. As noticed above, the learned Magistrate disposed of the application made under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. since, according to him, it did not require a "field investigation" by the police. According to the learned Magistrate, the concerned authority would have considered, in effecting the change in the shareholding qua the subject shares, the relevant documentation, and there being no allegation that the transferring authority had acted illegally, a police investigation was not required. However, the learned Magistrate gave the appellant the liberty to pursue his case by recourse to Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. If he chose to do so, the learned Magistrate opined that sufficient material should be placed on record, which would disclose that a prima facie case was made out against the proposed accused persons.

6. This order, as noticed above, impelled the appellant to file the aforementioned criminal revision petition, in which the statement by the respondent formed the basis of the defamation action.

7. Although the appellant and his mother are embroiled in both civil and criminal actions, for brevity, we have skirted clear of the same as the defamation action centres around the statement made by the respondent in the criminal revision proceedings referred to hereinabove.

7.1 That said, it would be relevant to note that the parties were referred to a mediator in Criminal M.C. 3799/2019 taken out by the appellant against the remand ordered by the Sessions Court on 30.03.2019, for reconsideration of the application moved by the appellant's mother under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. Evidently, the appellant's mother had filed an application under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. in proceedings taken out by the appellant under Section 200, read with Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The appellant's mother had contended that the appellant had perjured in the proceedings pending before the Magistrate.

7.2 These proceedings had been closed via order dated 13.08.2018, which was set aside by the Session's Court, as indicated above, on 30.03.2019, and the matter was remanded to the Magistrate for reconsideration.

7.3 This compelled the appellant to file Criminal M.C. 3799/2019, to whic