IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
Gangadharan C. – Appellant
Versus
State (NCT of Delhi) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. Appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) has been filed against the judgment dated 05.07.2018 whereby the learned MM dismissed the Complaint under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “ IPC ”) filed by the Petitioner/Gangadharan C. against Accused persons, i.e. Accused No. 1/Sh. Pankaj Mehrotra, the President, Accused No. 2/Sh. S. Chandrasekhar, the Secretary, and Accused No. 3/Sh. HS Bhandari and 4/Smt. Anjana Bhandari are the members of the Society, Accused No. 5/Sh. Swaminathan is the Advisor to the President of the Management Committee, Accused Nos. 6 to 10 (Sh. M Arshad Khan, Smt. Shanti Bhardwaj, Sh. CM Bhardwaj, Smt. Surender Kaur, Inderjeet Singh, respectively) who were the members of the Management Committee.
2. The Complainant/Petitioner had filed a Complaint under Section 500 IPC wherein he narrated that he is a member of a Society, i.e. Naveen Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited, in which he resides with his wife and family. He had been allotted a car parking in the Society in a lottery on 03.05.2009, in regard to which there w
Defamation requires proof of a derogatory statement made publicly that lowers a person's reputation, which was not established in this case.
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.
Intent to harm is necessary for establishing defamation under Indian Penal Code, and good faith expressions in a cooperative society's governance are protected from such allegations.
The court established that the intent to harm reputation is a key element of defamation under Section 499 of the IPC, and the burden of proving that an imputation falls within the Exceptions lies wit....
Defamation requires proof of an imputation made with intent to harm reputation; mere opinions or unpublicized statements do not constitute defamation.
A claimant in defamation does not need to prove fame to seek damages; jurisdiction was properly assessed under CPC provisions.
To establish defamation under IPC, there must be evidence directly linking the accused to the publication and an intention to cause harm, which was lacking in this case.
A cooperative society lacks locus standi to file a defamation complaint if the actual aggrieved party, namely its Managing Director, has not initiated the proceedings.
News alleging public servant corruption not defamatory if in good faith for public good, based on withheld information about public funds, with prior civil suit dismissal on same facts attaining fina....
(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 ....
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.