Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Neena Bansal Krishna, J.
Sanjay Banthiya, S/o Mr. F.M. Banthiya - Petitioner
Versus
Jagbir Singh Malik @ J S Malik, S/o Shri Balram Singh - Respondent
CRL.M.C. 6350 of 2018 & CRL.M.A. 49660 of 2018
Decided On : 01-04-2025
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 500 - Defamation - Petition filed to set aside summoning order under Section 500 IPC for alleged defamation - Respondent's complaints against Petitioner lacked concrete evidence of defamation - Court found no basis for allegations of criminal intimidation, forgery, or removal of certificates - Summoning order set aside due to absence of evidence and limitation issues. (Paras 1, 13, 64)
(B) Defamation - Definition and requirements - To establish defamation, there must be an imputation made with intent to harm reputation, which was not proven in this case - Statements made by employees were opinions and not publicized, thus not defamatory. (Paras 36, 57)
Facts of the case:
The Respondent, an employee, alleged harassment and defamation by the Petitioner and others after his termination. Multiple complaints were filed, but the learned Magistrate found no evidence of criminal acts except for a prima facie case of defamation against the Petitioner. (Paras 2-12)
Findings of Court:
The Court concluded that the Respondent failed to establish any concrete evidence of defamation or other criminal allegations against the Petitioner. The summoning order was set aside due to lack of evidence and limitation issues. (Paras 64)
Issues: The main issues addressed were whether the Respondent established a prima facie case of defamation and whether the allegations were made with intent to harm the Respondent's reputation. (Paras 35, 36)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the Respondent did not provide sufficient evidence to support claims of defamation, and the statements made were not publicized or made with intent to harm. The complaint was barred by limitation. (Paras 64)
Result: Petition allowed; summoning order set aside.
JUDGMENT :
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. Present Petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the “Cr.P.C.”) has been filed by the Petitioner/Sanjay Banthiya seeking setting aside of Order dated 04.10.2018 of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate whereby the Petitioner has been summoned for trial under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”), in a Complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., filed by the Respondent/Jagbir Singh Malik @ J.S. Malik.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Respondent/Jagbir Singh Malik @ J.S. Malik, an employee of Energy Infrastructure (India) Ltd. (EIIL), formerly known as WIMCO Petrogas Ltd., joined the Service vide Appointment Letter dated 24.02.1998. His service was terminated vide Termination Letter dated 08.10.2010 and his dues were paid in full.
3. Just prior to his termination, the Respondent filed a Complaint on 24.09.2010 with Police Station Gurgaon, Haryana against several officers of EIIL including the Petitioner/Mr. Sanjay Banthiya, Mr. Rajesh Rao, General Manager; Mr. Federick Peter Jones, Director and Mr. Shiv Kumar Jatia, Chairman alleging that he was facing harassment at workplace, resulting in mental torture and agony and that he was not promoted and was asked to hand over the files and records handled by him.
4. According to the Petitioner, he and other named persons namely Mr. Rajesh Rao, Mr. Fedrick P. Jones and Mr. Shiv Kumar Jatia, received the Notice of this Complaint dated 24.09.2010 only on 26.10.2010 and were not aware of the same at the time of termination of the service of Respondent.
5. The Petitioner appeared before the Gurgaon Police on 29.10.2010. The Gurgaon Police after due investigations, closed the Complaint on 30.10.2010.
6. The Respondent, pursuant to his termination on 08.10.2010, made another Complaint dated 10.10.2010 to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, East Delhi claiming that his termination was arbitrary.
7. The Respondent made another Complaint dated 19.09.2011 under Section 154 Cr.P.C. to SHO, Gurgaon Police making similar allegations, which was Closed on 10.10.2011.
8. Subsequent to Respondent's termination on 08.10.2010, EIIL came to know that a purported letter dated 12.10.2010, was written by Petitioner on behalf of EIIL to Vice Chairman, GBM, allegedly signed by Mr. Rajesh Rao, stating that EIIL wished to postpone /cancel the development of Okha Port in Gujarat and requested the return of Bank Guarantee of Rs.150 Lakhs. The Petitioner has alleged that neither he nor Mr. Rajesh Rao, had written the forged letter dated 12.10.2010 and they suspected that Respondent whose services were terminated on 08.10.2010, had sent this Letter under the forged signatures. A Complaint dated 16.11.2010 was made at Police Station Gandhi Nagar, on which FIR No. 1/415/2010 was registered by Gandhi Nagar Police.
9. The Respondent apprehending his arrest, filed various Applications for Anticipatory Bail before the Sessions' Court, Gujarat High Court and the Supreme Court, but all were rejected.
10. The Gujarat Police after due investigations, found that no case was made out against the Respondent and filed a Closure Report “A-Summary Report” dated 27.06.2012 in FIR No. 1/415/2010. However, it was stated that it would continue investigation to find the real offender who had committed the offences of forgery and impersonation. The Closure Report was accepted by the learned Magistrate, on 06.08.2012.
11. The Respondent then filed various Complaints against the Petitioner for seeking compensation before the learned Labour Court, New Delhi [LID No. 398/2016, South West District, Dwarka Courts, Delhi] and another before Labour Court, Kakardooma Court, East Delhi [LID No. 347/2014]. The Respondent has also filed Complaint dated 25.07.2015 before Station House Officer, Police Station Ghazipur and a Civil Suit bearing C.S. NO. 3321 of 2016, before the learned Trial Court.
12. The Respondent also filed impugned Complaint dated
Defamation requires proof of an imputation made with intent to harm reputation; mere opinions or unpublicized statements do not constitute 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....
Sanction for prosecuting a public servant is not required at the initial stage if the alleged offense is not inseparably linked to official duty. Furthermore, a magistrate satisfies the statutory req....
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....
Admissibility of electronic records under section 65B of the Evidence Act and careful assessment before issuing summons in a defamation case.
A lack of governmental consent under Section 196(2) Cr.P.C. does not bar prosecution for defamation offences, emphasizing the media's role in reporting on public matters.
(1) Defamation – When pleadings containing defamatory material are relied before court of law, same amounts to publication within meaning of Section 499 of RPC.(2) Where only a direction for issuance....
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
