1. Complaint for defamation by publication and distribution of pamphlets — Quashing of cognizance order under Sections 500, 501, 502 IPC. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 807
HIGH Court OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, J.
M/s Rajasthan Patrika Pvt Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan, through Pp – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1537 OF 2005
Decided On : 01-10-2026
Important Points
For defamation charges against a newspaper company or editor, there must be specific allegations of intention or knowledge to harm reputation. Mere publication without evidence of malice or conspiracy does not justify summoning, as doing so would abuse legal process and undermine constitutional press freedom.
Subject
Criminal Law - Defamation
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 482, 190, 200, 202 and 204 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 499, 500, 501 and 502 - Constitution of India - Article 19(1)(a) and 19(2) - Defamation - Cognizance and summoning of accused - Freedom of press - Issuance of process for defamation requires the Magistrate to be satisfied that there exists a prima facie case and sufficient ground for proceeding; summoning is a serious matter and cannot be done in a routine manner without attributing a specific role to each accused. (Paras 21, 22, 45)
(B) Constitution of India - Article 19(1)(a) - Freedom of speech and expression is a treasured value but subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), including defamation. However, the law must balance the protection of individual reputation under Article 21 with the need to protect journalistic freedom to ensure the criminal process does not become a vexatious exercise. (Paras 14, 15, 16)
(C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 499 and 500 - To constitute an offence of defamation, there must be an imputation made with intention, knowledge, or reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of the person. In cases involving a newspaper company, the liability depends on establishing that the management had the requisite intention or knowledge; mere publication of a news item without evidence of malice or conspiracy does not automatically attract criminal liability. (Paras 19, 34, 35)
(D) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - High Court is empowered to quash proceedings if they are manifestly perverse, frivolous, or instituted with an ulterior motive. Where the complaint and evidence fail to disclose the essential ingredients of the offence or the specific role of the accused, the summoning order constitutes an abuse of the process of law and is liable to be quashed. (Paras 47, 48, 49)
Facts of the case:
A criminal complaint was filed against several individuals, including a newspaper company and its editor, alleging defamation caused by the organization of a campaign, distribution of pamphlets, use of loudspeakers, and the publication of a news article. The trial court took cognizance under Sections 500, 501, and 502 of the IPC. A revisional court subsequently affirmed the cognizance order. The petitioners sought quashing of these orders on the grounds that the complaint and evidence did not attribute any specific role or malicious intent to them, nor did they have any connection to the printing press or the local events described in the complaint.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the complaint and statements recorded under Section 200 and 202 of the CrPC failed to specify any role of the petitioners in the distribution of pamphlets or the demonstrations. While the petitioners were linked to the publication of a news article, there was no evidence of a conspiracy between the petitioners and the local correspondent or other accused persons. The trial court's order of cognizance was found to be a non-application of mind as it did not demonstrate how the petitioners' actions specifically injured the complainant's reputation.
Issues: Whether the order of cognizance and the subsequent revisional order could be quashed under Section 482 CrPC in the absence of specific allegations regarding the petitioners' role, intention, and involvement in the alleged defamatory acts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. For an offence of defamation, intent or knowledge to harm reputation is an essential ingredient. In the absence of such evidence, and where the trial court fails to assign a specific role to the petitioners, the issuance of process is an abuse of law. Protecting the freedom of the press in a democracy necessitates that proceedings be quashed if they are based on a frivolous complaint lacking essential legal ingredients.
Result: Criminal miscellaneous petition allowed; order of cognizance and order of revisional court set aside; proceedings against petitioners quashed.
(B) Constitution of India - Article 19(1)(a) - Freedom of speech and expression is a treasured value but subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), including defamation. However, the law must balance the protection of individual reputation under Article 21 with the need to protect journalistic freedom to ensure the criminal process does not become a vexatious exercise. (Paras 14, 15, 16)
(C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 499 and 500 - To constitute an offence of defamation, there must be an imputation made with intention, knowledge, or reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of the person. In cases involving a newspaper company, the liability depends on establishing that the management had the requisite intention or knowledge; mere publication of a news item without evidence of malice or conspiracy does not automatically attract criminal liability. (Paras 19, 34, 35)
(D) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - High Court is empowered to quash proceedings if they are manifestly perverse, frivolous, or instituted with an ulterior motive. Where the complaint and evidence fail to disclose the essential ingredients of the offence or the specific role of the accused, the summoning order constitutes an abuse of the process of law and is liable to be quashed. (Paras 47, 48, 49)
Facts of the case:
A criminal complaint was filed against several individuals, including a newspaper company and its editor, alleging defamation caused by the organization of a campaign, distribution of pamphlets, use of loudspeakers, and the publication of a news article. The trial court took cognizance under Sections 500, 501, and 502 of the IPC. A revisional court subsequently affirmed the cognizance order. The petitioners sought quashing of these orders on the grounds that the complaint and evidence did not attribute any specific role or malicious intent to them, nor did they have any connection to the printing press or the local events described in the complaint.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the complaint and statements recorded under Section 200 and 202 of the CrPC failed to specify any role of the petitioners in the distribution of pamphlets or the demonstrations. While the petitioners were linked to the publication of a news article, there was no evidence of a conspiracy between the petitioners and the local correspondent or other accused persons. The trial court's order of cognizance was found to be a non-application of mind as it did not demonstrate how the petitioners' actions specifically injured the complainant's reputation.
Issues: Whether the order of cognizance and the subsequent revisional order could be quashed under Section 482 CrPC in the absence of specific allegations regarding the petitioners' role, intention, and involvement in the alleged defamatory acts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. For an offence of defamation, intent or knowledge to harm reputation is an essential ingredient. In the absence of such evidence, and where the trial court fails to assign a specific role to the petitioners, the issuance of process is an abuse of law. Protecting the freedom of the press in a democracy necessitates that proceedings be quashed if they are based on a frivolous complaint lacking essential legal ingredients.
Result: Criminal miscellaneous petition allowed; order of cognizance and order of revisional court set aside; proceedings against petitioners quashed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
- constitutional law
- tort
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. V.R. Bajwa, Senior Advocate with Ms. Savita Nathawat, Mr. Mahesh Vijay, Mr. Manish K. Sharma
For the Respondent: Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP, Mr. Ram Babu Sharma
For the Petitioner:Mr. V.R. Bajwa, Senior Advocate with Ms. Savita Nathawat, Mr. Mahesh Vijay, Mr. Manish K. Sharma
For the Respondent: Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP, Mr. Ram Babu Sharma
Table of Contents
2. Dispute over specific role of publisher/editor in defamation — Applicability of exceptions to Section 499 IPC for fair publication. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
3. No specific allegations against petitioners; trial court failed to consider essential ingredients of defamation and good faith publication. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 )
4. Issuance of process requires specific allegations against each accused fulfilling essential ingredients of defamation, not satisfied here. (Para 22 , 34 , 35 , 43 , 44 , 45 )
5. Criminal miscellaneous petition allowed; cognizance and revisional orders set aside; proceedings quashed for petitioners. (Para 50 , 51 )
6. What are the essential ingredients to constitute an offence of defamation under Section 499 IPC?
The accused must make an imputation concerning another with intention, knowledge, or reason to believe it will harm their reputation, through words or visible representations made or published. (Para 34 , 43 )
7. Can a court issue process without specific allegations against each accused about their role in defamation?
No; the Magistrate must be satisfied that specific allegations and role attributed to each accused exist, and must not issue process in a routine manner without such satisfaction. (Para 22 , 45 , 46 )
8. Are journalists and newspapers protected by freedom of speech when publishing news in good faith?
Yes; publication bona fide in good faith, believing the truth, or covered under exceptions to Section 499 IPC, does not constitute defamation. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 24 , 26 , 43 , 44 , 49 )
9. When can the High Court quash a defamation complaint under Section 482 CrPC?
When allegations, even if true, do not constitute the offence of defamation or are frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, the High Court can quash the proceedings. (Para 23 , 47 , 48 , 49 )
10. What is the legal position regarding the liability of an editor and newspaper company for defamatory content?
Specific allegations regarding the role and knowledge of the editor or management are required; mere designation without active involvement or conspiracy is insufficient to hold them liable. (Para 29 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 42 )
ORDER :
ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, J.
1. The instant criminal miscellaneous petition has been preferred under Section 482 of CrPC by the petitioners aggrieved from order dated 11th November 2005 in Criminal Revision No.86/2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lakshmangarh, District Alwar, whereby the revisional Court has affirmed the order of cognizance dated 7th April 2004 in criminal complaint case No. 7/2003 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakshmangarh, District Alwar, wherein an order of cognizance has been passed against ten accused, including present petitioners under Sections 500, 501 and 502 of IPC.
2. During pendency of miscellaneous petition, petitioner No.3- Milap Kothari has expired, thus his name has been deleted on 1st September 2021. Now we are considering this petition on behalf of petitioners No.1 and 2.
3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners would submitted that non-petitioner No. 2 has filed a criminal complaint on 21st August 2003 against ten persons alleging inter alia that he is a lawyer and practicing at Laxmangarh and the accused, who were annoyed and having animosity due to his success in advocacy, has distributed pamphlets and organised a demonstration with intent to injure his reputation. He also submitted that on basis of distribution of pamphlet and said incident, the complaint has been filed wherein clearly mentioned that the pamphlets were distributed by other accused persons and same was printed at Surya Printers but present petitioners have no role in said incident of demonstration and distribution of pamphlets. He further submitted that making allegation in para No. 9 of complaint that the accused Nos.1 to 4 with intent to circulate the details mentioned in the pamphlets have published a news article with intention to injure and cause damage the reputation of complainant. He submitted that in the entire complaint nowhere it has been mentioned that how these petitioners have played any role in publication and distribution of pamphlets, as the petitioners have nothing to do with any of the acts committed by other accused and also with the Surya printing press, which published the pamphlets. He also submitted that in the entire complaint nowhere any kind of specific role and involvement of these petitioners were mentioned and further, after registration of complaint in the statements under Section 200 and 202 of CrPC nowhere it has been mentioned that any of the petitioners have any role in printing, drafting or intentional publication in the news article. He also referred the statement of complainant recorded under Section 200 of CrPC and submitted that as per complainant, a loudspeaker was engaged by other accused in distribution of the pamphlets. He also submitted that there were sloganeering by some of the individuals and people have also gathered wherein speeches were made, but none of them have any proximity with petitioners. He also submitted that the evidence of complainant clearly suggest that it was a local incident which has actually occurred and explained by complainant and his witnesses, but have nothing to do with present petitioners.
4. Learned Senior Advocate would further submitted that the local correspondent who were not on regular role of petitioner No.1 has sent a news article and the newspaper has published the same without any interpolation in the news. He also submitted that the complainant has alleged that there was a conspiracy but there is no evidence about meeting of minds between the petitioners and other accused who have acted against the complainant. He further referred the publication dated 7th April 2004 in another newspaper Dainik Bhaskar and submitted that on basis of said news article, the news published in newspaper owned by the petitioner No.1 cannot be termed as false or malicious campaign published with intent to defame the complainant. He also submitted that the complainant has failed to mention the essentia
