Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(All) 121

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW
BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.
Jyoti Kamal And Others - Applicants
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. And Another – Respondents
APPLICATION U/s 482 No. - 3237 of 2020
Decided On : 29-01-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant : Nadeem Murtaza, Anjani Kumar Mishra
For the Respondent: G.A., Ishan Baghel, Mohd. Khalid

The court cannot quash proceedings under Section 482 CrPC based on allegations of defamation without the trial, as it does not determine the merits or conduct a mini-trial.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of summoning order - Application filed seeking to quash the order passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate in complaint case against media representatives for defamation - Court found that the allegations of defamation were based on a news telecast which was part of public discourse and later exonerated by an inquiry. - The court must be cautious in quashing proceedings as it cannot weigh evidence or conduct a mini-trial at this stage (Paras 1, 10, 22, 26).

(B) Defamation - Fair report privilege - News channel's reporting did not attribute the allegations directly to the complainant nor suggest complicity. The court held that the applicants did not commit any offense as the news report was a fair and unbiased rendition (Paras 6, 22, 24).

Facts of the case:
Complaints were filed by an IPS officer alleging defamation through news telecast claiming his involvement in corrupt practices. Inquiry exonerated the officer, and the applicants contended their news report was fair.

Findings of Court:
The court found no ground for quashing the summons as the matter needed to go to trial and issues of evidence should be considered therein.

Issues: Whether the news report constituted defamation, and if it warranted quashing of the proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that it can only examine the appropriateness of the legal proceedings, not the merits of the case or innocence of the accused at this stage.

Result: Application rejected.

Table of Content
1. allegations in complaint regarding media reporting. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. claim of fair reporting and defense against defamation. (Para 7 , 8 , 10 , 11)
3. arguments of both parties regarding responsibility and role. (Para 12 , 13 , 18)
4. court's avoidance of weighing evidence and necessity for trial. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
5. final decision to reject the application. (Para 26 , 27 , 28)

JUDGMENT :

BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

1.Heard Shri Nadeem Murtaza, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Rao Narendra Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and Shri Ishan Baghel, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

2. The present application under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed seeking quashing of impugned summoning order dated 12.12.2018 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 32, Lucknow (in short “Magistrate”) in Complaint Case No. 1297 along with entire criminal proceedings arising out thereof.

3. It is the case of the applicants that the Applicant Nos. 1 to 3 were working as Executive Editor, Crime Reporter and Assistant News Editor, respectively, in the News18 Channel. It has been submitted that the Applicant No. 1 was not involved in airing the news in the Channel on 20.09.2017. Also, both the channels i.e. News18 Punjab/Haryana/Himachal Pradesh and News18 Uttar Pradesh/Uttarakhand are owned and operated by TV18 Broadcast Limited.

4. It has been stated that the allegations in the complaint dated 28.05.2018 are that the Opposite Party No.2/Complainant is an IPS officer of the UP Police and was then working as IG, STF, Uttar Pradesh and posted in Lucknow and, on 20.09.2017 at about 07:45 pm, a news was telecast on News 18 Punjab/Haryana/Himachal Pradesh projecting that the Opposite Party No.2 was involved in earning illicit money from criminals, which has lead to loss of reputation of Opposite Party No.2. It has been further alleged that the Applicants have telecast the aforesaid news intentionally and deliberately.

5. It has been further stated that the news was reported in various national newspapers that the mastermind of Nabha Jail Break, Gurpreet Singh alias Gopi Ghanshyampuria was arrested by the UP Police and was later set free by a senior police officer of UP Police in lieu of money. This incident was also covered by renowned newspapers like The Tribune and Dainik Jagran on 18.09.2017.

6. It has been further stated that as the matter was reported in various newspapers in the country and several news channels, where-after, the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Uttar Pradesh Government, Lucknow ordered that an inquiry be conducted by Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order), Uttar Pradesh to ascertain the veracity of the incidents reported by the media. The inquiry was concluded on 28.09.2017 and the Opposite Party No.2 was exonerated from all the charges.

7. It has been further stated that the allegations of the Opposite Party No.2 in his complaint, dated 28.05.2018, are totally false as the news telecast by the Channel on 20.09.2017 at 07:45 pm did not contain any news that could defame the Opposite Party No.2.

8. It has been further stated that the Channel has done fair, unbiased and bona fide reporting of the whole incident. Even in their telecast on 20.09.2017 at 07:45 pm, the Channel did not attribute any role to the Opposite Party No.2 in setting Gurpreet Singh alias Gopi Ghanshyampuria free.

9. It has been further stated that after recording the statement under Section 200 CrPC of the Complainant and the statements under Section 202 CrPC of two witnesses namely Anil Kumar Singh and Ramendra Singh Rathore and after going through the entire record, the summons have been issued by the trial Court without application of mind.

10. Shri Nadeem Murtaza, learned counsel for the applicants has stated that the discussion between the two persons has been telecast by the news channel as it is, therefore, no offense is made out against the Applicants because the Appli