Statements made in the course of legal complaints do not constitute defamation when protected as free speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT

Mukta Gupta, J. Aggrieved by the order dated 29th July, 2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-02, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, directing to take cognizance on the complaint filed by the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 354B/499/500/501/502/120B IPC and under the provisions of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short `SC/ST Act'), the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition.

2. In the complaint, the petitioner had impleaded around 40 accused and alleged that she had a land dispute with some of the respondents, which land was purchased by her parents in 1996, qua which litigation was going on. It is stated that the complainant is a well known and respected social worker amongst the Tribals and others in the entire Raigarh district as well as other parts of Chhattisgarh. Since the year 2000 accused No.40 having his corporate office at New Delhi has been trying to grab her farmhouse/BDO, Bari by hook and crook and has undertaken regular criminal attacks on her since 1st June, 2021 till 18th June, 2021. The petitioner was physically harassed and disrobed using sexual language, abused by caste and dirty words, dragging her from the land and giving statement in the press and releasing abusive defamatory false allegations in the impugned electronic media which is running since 17th June, 2021 till date damaging her reputation and her right to live with dignity.

3. It is alleged that the offences of defamation of the complainant have been done by the respondent Nos.1 to 39 at the behest of Respondent No.40 who is providing funds, against whom Writ Petition (C) No.12/2011 is pending before Chhattisgarh High Court at Bilaspur. It is also alleged that on 1st June, 2021 the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 entered the petitioner's farmhouse, physically harassed her, tried to disrobe her by driving her out of her farmhouse for which the petitioner made an oral complaint on 1st June, 2021 followed by a written complaint dated 6th June, 2021 at PS Punjipathra, District Raigarh under the provisions of SC/ST Act.

4. As regards the allegation of defamation are concerned, it is the case of the complainant that the accused after giving a written complaint to the SP Raipur held a press conference outside the office of SP Raigarh making several defamatory statements and releasing the said statements to the newspaper. It is thus stated that the newspaper clippings of the said press statement were received by persons known to the complainant at Delhi also and since the impugned news is being flashed in the electronic media including at Delhi, the same amounts to defamation and the petitioner suffers irreparable injury and loss of reputation. Hence this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of defamation.

5. In para-18 of the complaint it is stated that the cause of action arose to file the present defamation complaint before this Court as the same was seen by the complainant and several other people at New Delhi on 18th June, 2021.

6. From the complaint, it is thus evident that in relation to the alleged offences of entering the farmhouse, dragging and harassing her, the petitioner has already lodged a complaint with the local police at Raigarh. Further the cause of action, if any, has arisen in this regard at Raigarh and hence no complaint would lie in the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the present complaint is for the offence of defamation only and thus Delhi Police, PS Civil Lines be directed to register FIR in the present defamation case against the 40 accused an