The court held that a news report published in good faith, including the complainant's version, does not constitute defamation under IPC Sections 499-501.

Judgment

Mr. Anoop Chitkara, J. :-

1. An Editor of “The Indian Express” aggrieved by the dismissal of the criminal revision petition by the Sessions Court refusing to quash the summons issued in the above-captioned complaint filed for criminal defamation, had come up before this Court by filing the present petition under Section 482 CrPC.

2. As per paragraph 2 of the petition, the petitioner declares that he was working as Editor (Chandigarh) of “The Indian Express” (Chandigarh Edition), printed and published by The Indian Express Private Limited, and at that time, the petitioner was a resident of Chandigarh and now, a resident of Panchkula.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the issuance of summons and the upholding of the said order by the Sessions Court in the above-captioned complaint filed by the respondent, Mr. Param Vir Rathee, IPS, against many journalists and political leaders, in all thirty-four people. The petitioner relies on many grounds, including the issue of cause and jurisdiction, and that even if the complaint is accepted as true, there is still no violation of section 499 IPC, nor did the petitioner act with any malice or intention to defame the complainant. The petitioner’s counsel submits that during the interregnum of pendency of this petition, the complainant has settled the matter with some of the respondents; however, no such settlement took place with the petitioner.

4. The respondent-complainant has filed a reply and opposed the present petition because it was the duty of the petitioner to verify the correctness of the news, and without doing so, he let the news printed and published in Indian Express, which caused irreparable loss/damage to the complainant’s reputation and petitioner is liable to be prosecuted and punished under Sections 499 and 500 IPC.

5. In the complaint, Annexure P-2, the complainant alleged that he is an IPS Officer of the 1997 batch and belongs to the Haryana cadre. He has been an honest officer, performing his duties with exemplary devotion and sincerity. His Annual Confidential Reports have rated him as an officer of integrity and honesty. At the time of the alleged defamation and the filing of the complaint, he claimed to be posted as Additional Director General of Police (CID), Haryana and asserted that a person of the highest integrity is posted on such a sensitive post as CID Chief of the State. The complainant further stated that he held a high reputation for honesty and integrity; for these reasons, he has earned respect in society, among his colleagues, and the State.

6. As per paragraph no.5 of the complaint, it has been alleged that on June 17, 2008, the complainant noticed a news item in Indian Express with topic: “Accused says he bribed ADGP, sought police protection.” The complainant further stated that in the news item, it was reported that Dr. Sandeep Sharma, an accused in the criminal case, had confessed before the Central Bureau of Investigation [CBI] that Param Vir Rathee had recommended Sandeep Sharma’s police protection after taking a bribe. In the complaint, the copy of Indian Express dated June 17, 2008, was annexed [Annexure C-1]. In paragraph seven of the complaint, the complainant further declares that on verification, he came to know that said CBI had not arrested Sandeep Sharma, and as such, his confessing before CBI was out of the question, and consequently, there was no occasion to the complainant recommending his police protection. The next day, the CBI gave a statement, published in the Times of India on June 18, 2008, [C-2]/P-2], in which the CBI clarified this part. In paragraph no. 8, the complainant mentioned a li