SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(All) 510

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW
Brij Raj Singh, J.
Smt. Sadhana Chooramani @ Sadhana Bedi – Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another – Respondent
Application U/S 482 No. - 3475 of 2026, Application U/S 482 No. - 3679 of 2026, Application U/S 482 No. - 3477 of 2026
Decided On : 21-05-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant : Subhash Bisaria, Gaurav Tripathi
For the Respondent: G.A., Aishwarya Saxena, Manish Vaish

For the offence of defamation under Section 499, Explanation 4 of the Indian Penal Code, the imputation must objectively lower the reputation in the estimation of others; a complaint fails where all witnesses and complainants are internal employees, as they do not constitute independent or public observers.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 499, Explanation 4 - Defamation - Essential ingredient of offence - Requirement that imputation must lower the reputation of a person in the estimation of others - Where all complainants and witnesses are employees of the targeted institution, the statutory requirement for the offence is not fulfilled (Paras 26, 32, 33).

(B) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent powers of High Court - Quashing of criminal proceedings - While the court cannot conduct a mini-trial, it is justified to interfere when the essential ingredients of the alleged offence are clearly absent to prevent abuse of legal process (Paras 21, 30, 32).

Facts of the case:
Multiple complaint cases were initiated against certain individuals for defamation under the Indian Penal Code, arising from alleged demonstrations and the distribution of materials aimed at maligning an educational institution and its founder. The accused challenged the summoning orders issued by the magistrate, contending that the institution and its employees had initiated multiple proceedings despite the absence of any harm to reputation in the estimation of third parties and that the complainants/witnesses lacked standing as they were all employees of the same institution.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that Explanation 4 to Section 499 requires that an imputation must lower the reputation of a person in the estimation of others to constitute defamation. Since the complainants and all supporting witnesses provided in the criminal proceedings were exclusive employees of the institution itself, they failed to qualify as "others" in whose estimation the reputation was allegedly harmed. Accordingly, the court found the essential ingredients of the offence were lacking.

Issues: The central issue was whether a complaint of defamation is maintainable when the complainant and all supporting witnesses are employees of the represented entity, and whether such a situation satisfies the requirement that reputation must be lowered in the estimation of others.

Ratio Decidendi: To satisfy the offence of defamation under Section 499 IPC, there must be evidence that the imputation effectively lowered the character or reputation of the person in the estimation of others. Where the evidentiary base consists entirely of internal employees of the institution, they cannot be deemed "others," thereby precluding the establishment of a prima facie case.

Result: Applications allowed; the impugned criminal proceedings and summoning orders are quashed.

Table of Content
1. overview of multiple defamation complaint cases against the applicant. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. arguments challenging criminal defamation summons on grounds of proxy filing and double jeopardy. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
3. arguments opposing the discharge/quashing of criminal proceedings. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
4. judicial precedents defining defamation and the estimation of others under section 499 ipc. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
5. failure to meet statutory requirements due to internal employee status of witnesses. (Para 31 , 32 , 33)
6. quashing of the impugned summoning orders and criminal proceedings. (Para 34 , 35)

JUDGMENT :

BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

1. Since the common question of facts and law are involved in all three applications, therefore, with the consent of the parties, they are being heard and decided by a common judgement.

2. The applicant/Smt. Sadhana Chooramani alias Sadhana Bedi in seeking setting aside of summoning order dated 25.03.2019 in Complaint Case No.2668 of 2018 (Pyarelal Shukla Vs. Sadhna Bedi & Ors.), under Sections 500, 501 of Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”), pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Lucknow (for short “Magistrate”).

3. The applicants i.e. Smt. Sadhana Chooramani alias Sadhana Bedi and Rajesh Agarwal alias Rajesh Kumar Agarwal, respectively, in APPLICATION U/s 482 Nos. 3477 and 3679 of 2026 have filed the applications seeking setting aside of summoning order dated 31.07.2019 in Complaint Case No.2565 of 2018 (Surendra Kumar Verma Vs. Rajesh Agarwal & Ors.), under Sections 500, 501 of IPC, pending in the Court of the Magistrate.

4. The facts of APPLICATION U/s 482 Nos. 3475 of 2026 are extracted herein-below.

The complainant filed a complaint stating therein that he was employed as a typist at City Montessori School, Station Road Branch, Lucknow (for short “CMS”), and that several persons, being jealous of the reputation of Shri Jagdish Gandhi (since deceased) on account of better education and discipline imparted by the institution, conspired to malign the image of CMS and its founder, Dr. Jagdish Gandhi. It has been alleged that Rajesh Agrawal, Ritesh Agrawal, Dr. Sunil Bisen, and Sandeep Pandey, had, even prior to the present incident, distributed pamphlets to defame CMS and its founder and had also staged demonstrations. It has further been alleged that, in order to create terror and defile the image of the school and Shri Jagdish Gandhi, on 18.08.2018, after sending an e-mail, Sandeep Pandey asked his supporters to hold demonstrations before CMS. Pursuant thereto, the supporters allegedly held demonstrations and distributed pamphlets. The statements of the complainant and the witnesses were recorded under Sections 200 and 202 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “CrPC”). Thereafter, the Magistrate summoned the applicants to face trial vide the impugned order dated 25.03.2019.

5. The facts of APPLICATION U/s 482 Nos. 3477 and 3679 of 2026 are related to each other and have arisen out of same complaint case which are mentioned below.

The complainant filed a complaint stating therein that he was employed as an Office Secretary at CMS. It has been alleged that Rajesh Agrawal, Ritesh Agrawal, Dr. Sunil Bisen, and Sandeep Pandey had, even prior to the present incident, distributed pamphlets to malign the image of CMS and its founder, Dr. Jagdish Gandhi, and had also staged demonstrations. It has further been alleged that, in order to create terror and defame the school and Shri Jagdish Gandhi, on 18.08.2018 and 25.08.2018, after sending an e-mail, Sandeep Pandey asked his supporters to hold demonstrations before CMS. Pursuant thereto, the supporters allegedly held demonstrations and distributed pamphlets. The statements of the complainant and the witnesses were recorded under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC. Thereafter, the Magistrate summoned the applicants to face trial vide order dated 31.07.2019.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top