Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 4665
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Judge, J
Anirban Chattopadhyay – Appellant
Versus
Krishnendu Narayan – Respondent
C.R.R 2428 of 2017|complaint case no. 382C/2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Gangully, Mr. Sourav Chatterjee
For the Respondents: Mr. Chatterjee
Journalistic reporting about public conduct made in good faith, incorporating multiple perspectives, does not attract defamation under IPC Sections 500 or 501, protected under Article 19(1)(a).
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 500, 501 - Criminal Defamation - The publication of a news article regarding a complaint against the opposite party for demanding payment related to construction was deemed to not constitute criminal defamation as it reported the allegations objectively and included responses from involved parties. The petitioners were found to have acted in good faith, protected by the right to freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a). The issue of jurisdiction under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. was also raised, as the accused resided outside the CJM's jurisdiction without proper inquiry. (Paras 1-4, 6-8, 17-31)
(B) Freedom of Speech - The court underscored that journalistic reporting on public conduct, when done in good faith and with balanced views, does not attract defamation. (Paras 19-28)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, as the editor, publisher, and reporter of a news article published in December 2016, reported on a complaint of corruption involving public officials, which alleged that a public servant demanded money for permitting construction. The opposite party claimed to have been defamed by this publication.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the publication merely reported a public complaint without intent to harm reputation, incorporated varied viewpoints, and hence did not constitute an offence under sections 500 or 501.
Issues: The primary issues included whether the publication constituted defamation and whether the court had proper jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court opined that good faith publications regarding public servants, which accurately relay complaints and responses without imposing malice, are protected under the freedom of speech. Additionally, it was highlighted that proper procedure regarding inquiries under the Cr.P.C. was not adhered to in the issuance of process against the petitioners.
Result: Complaint case no. 382C/2017 quashed against the petitioners.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initiation of complaint and jurisdictional issues. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments for quashing based on defamation criteria. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. counterarguments regarding evidentiary standards. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. statutory interpretation of defamation and good faith. (Para 13 , 15) |
| 5. court observations on the nature of the news report. (Para 14 , 19 , 20 , 22) |
| 6. examination of the impact on reputation and evidence. (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 7. constitutional rights to freedom of speech. (Para 27 , 28) |
| 8. conclusion on quashing proceedings under ipc. (Para 29 , 30) |
| 9. final order quashing the complaint. (Para 31) |
1. The petitioners herein have sought for quashing of a complaint case being case no. 382C/2017 initiated by opposite party herein under section 500/501/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC ) which relates to a publication carried in a widely circulated Bengali daily on 19th December, 2016, covering a news article relating to complainant/opposite party herein.
2. The allegations levelled by the opposite party/complainant is to the effect that vide aforesaid publication under the headline ‘Abhijukto Krishnendu Nararyan’ ( Krishnendu Narayan has been made as accused), in which it was reported that a complaint has been lodged by house owners of a house at ward no. 10 Imam Bara Lane, Malda English Bazar Municipality, against the opposite party herein and his associates for threatening and resisting construction of roof at the house of said persons on a demand of Rs. 19,00,000/-. The petitioner no. 1 and 2 are the editor and the publishers of the said newspaper and petitioner no.3 is the reporter.
3. On the basis of the written complaint the court below after taking cognizance and after examining the complainant on affirmation, issued process against the accused persons including the petitioners herein under section 500/501/34 of the IPC , invoking his jurisdiction under section 204 of the Cr.P.C.
4. Being aggrieved by the impugned proceeding Mr. Gangully learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that on perusal of the news report it would reflect that the said news report is an objective peace of reporting which simply states that a complaint has been filed against the opposite party by some residents of ward no. 10 Imambara Lane for demanding Rs. 19,00,000/- to permit them to go on with the construction. It is further submitted that the said news report by itself also states that the response of the opposite party who denied such allegations levelled by the said local residents, the response of the police as well as the version of the concerned family members of the family who had alleged demand of money by the opposite party and his associates, has also been mentioned in the report.
5. Mr. Gangully in this context further argued that from the four corners of the news article and also from the contents of petition of complaint, it is clear that it does not disclose the ingredients of criminal defamation as defined under section 499 of the IPC . His contention is in the impugned news article nothing can be found which attributes any intention on the part of the petitioners herein to cause harm to the reputation of the opposite party. In fact the news report has only reported regarding the complaint filed against such public servant in relations to his acts, while discharging such public duties.
6. He further argued that news article clearly discloses an objective news report which does not contain any opinion by the newspaper but simply covers news of public importance where there is an allegation levelled in writing by some of the residents of ward no.10, Imam bara Lane against the opposite party and where the response of the opposite party has also been reported in the news report and as such it cannot amount to defamation.
7. Accordingly he argued that an article published in good faith falls within the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression, enshrined under Ar
