Statements made in court do not constitute publication for defamation, and jurisdiction must be established based on where the alleged acts occurred.

JUDGMENT :

1) The petitioner has challenged the complaint filed by respondent against him before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar (hereinafter referred to as “the Trial Magistrate”), alleging commission of offences under Section 499 of RPC read with Section 500 and 201 of RPC. Challenge has also been thrown to order dated 23.06.2016 passed by the Trial Magistrate whereby process has been issued against the petitioner.

2) It appears that the respondent has filed a complaint against the petitioner before the learned Trial Magistrate alleging therein that in the usual course of mercantile transactions, he was conducting business of sale and purchase of jewellery and other articles with the petitioner for so many years. It has been alleged in the impugned complaint that in the year 2013, during the course of the business, the respondent/complainant issued three cheques for an amount of Rs.14.00 lacs for clearing the outstanding liability and in this regard, an agreement was executed between the parties. In spite of this settlement, the petitioner/accused filed an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur against the respondent/complainant which was referred to the police for investigation.

On the basis of this complaint, FIR No.247/2014 was registered and after investigation of the case, chargesheet was laid against the respondent/complainant before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur. It is further alleged in the impugned complaint that during the course of hearing of the bail application before the Sessions Judge at Jaipur, the petitioner herein levelled serious allegations concerning the reputation of the respondent alleging that the respondent belongs to outlawed organization “Hizbul Mujahideen” , which resulted in rejection of his bail application.

3) It has been alleged in the impugned complaint that in view of the baseless and defamatory allegations levelled by the petitioner in the Court, the said news was published in various newspapers at different places where the respondent/complainant conducts his business and it was reported that the respondent/complainant is involved in terrorist and sabotage activities being a militant of the outlawed and banned organization “Hizbul Mujahideen”. This according to the respondent/complainant resulted in loss of his reputation and good-will not only in Goa where he carries on his business but also in Jammu and Kashmir where he is residing and is purchasing commodities of Kashmiri Handicrafts for its sale.

4) It has been further alleged in the impugned complaint that because of rejection of bail application of the respondent/complainant, he had to approach the High Court of Rajasthan but his application was again resisted not only by the prosecution but also by the petitioner. The High Court of Rajasthan while adverting to the arguments of the counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused that the respondent/complainant is associated with terrorist organization “Hizbul Mujahideen”, referred the matter to National Investigating Agency. The High Court issued a direction for registration of a case after taking appropriate sanction from the concerned Ministry and to investigate the matter. It has been submitted that the bail application was finally taken up for disposal on 17.05.2016 after a detailed report was filed by the National Investigation Agency in which it was categorically stated that the respondent/complainant is not involved or associated with any terror group including “Hizbul Mujahideen” Accordingly, he was admitted to bail by the Rajasthan High Court.

5) It has been further averred in the impugned complaint that due to the actions of the petitioner herein, the respondent/complainant has been subjected to illegal detention and he has suffered loss not only to his reputation but also to his trade in Goa and in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. It has been alleged that the petitioner/accused has, with malicious design, defamed the respondent/comp