To establish defamation, there must be an imputation made with intent to harm the reputation of the complainant, which was not proven in this case.

JUDGMENT

Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan, J.

Heard Mr. Shamshad Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant, as well as Mr. V.K. Shahi, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Rajesh Singh, learned AGA, and perused the record.

2. This application has been filed by the applicant -Vartika Singh for quashing of the order dated 21.10.2022 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Court MP/MLA, Sultanpur in Complaint Case No.01/2021 (Vartika Singh v. Present Union Minister of India, Smt. Smriti Irani).

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant before this court is an International Shooter and former President of India awardee. She has completed her post-graduate from Delhi University and has been invited as Chief Guest in so-many programmes organized by the Government of India as well as in many State Functions i.e. Ek Bharat Shresth Bharat, Ujjawala Yojana, Kaushal Vikas Yojana, Aparajita, Guest of Honour in various programmes of A.B.V.P. organized by Lucknow University, in the programme of RSS and she has also given free training of shooting to girls at the Doon School, Dehradun.

4. It is further submitted that the applicant had filed a criminal complaint against the opposite party no. 2-Smt. Smriti Zubain Irani, who is a Cabinet Minister of Union of India with regard to defamatory statements given by her to the print and electronic media about the applicant and the same has damaged the reputation of the applicant-complainant and defamed her publicly by publishing and broadcasting the same on several news channels, social media and print media.

5. It is vehemently submitted that the opposite party number-2 has stated that the applicant-complainant is having a close association with Congress Party and also described her as a criminal element and has also addressed her as "pawns (piyada) of Congress" having direct relations with the Gandhi family. It is vehemently submitted that publication of this statement in the electronic and print media and at different social media platforms has damaged the reputation of the applicant-complainant and the said statements were also read and seen by the family members, relative and friends of the applicant-complainant and, her reputation has lowered in their eyes. It is vehemently submitted that in support of the allegations levelled in the complaint the applicant-complainant has presented herself as a witness and her statement was recorded under section 200 CrPC and of her witnesses under section 202 CrPC and thereafter the trial court has also directed investigation under section 202 CrPC and despite there being sufficient material to proceed further and to summon the opposite party no. 2, the trial court, without assigning cogent and acceptable reasons, has dismissed the complaint of the applicant-complainant under section 203 CrPC.

6. It is further submitted that at the stage of summoning meticulous exercise of appreciation of evidence is not warranted and the duty of the court is only to see if there is prima facie material available on the basis of which an accused person may be put on trial and the evidence is not required as it is warranted at the time of conviction of an accused person of the crime. Reliance has been placed on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.34 of 2015 (Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation) and other connected appeals and in Criminal Appeal No.1231 of 2013 (Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra and another).

7. On the other hand, learned A.G.A., relying on the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, submits that no illegality has been committed by the trial court in dismissing the complaint filed by the applicant-complainant as the applicant-complainant herself is an accused in five criminal cases, detail of which has been given in Annexure CA-1, enclosed with the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, and it is stated that a person, who is herself havi