Defamation is a continuing wrong, and jurisdiction is established where defamatory material is communicated or accessed, allowing courts to assess complaints even at a preliminary stage.

O R D E R

% 04.07.2025

1. The present petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 , [$~60] impugns summoning order dated 16^th December, 2024, titled as Rakesh Pradhan @Kalwa v. Jitender & Ors., passed by the Court of JMFC-07, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in C.C. No. 1125/2023, and seeks quashing of the complaint as well as the proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. The matter is currently at a preliminary stage, where the Trial Court has merely issued summons to the Petitioners for alleged offences punishable under Sections 499 , 500, and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 . Nevertheless, the Petitioners, feeling aggrieved, have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court, contending that the complaint constitutes a gross abuse of the process of law and that the impugned summoning order warrants interference. It is argued that the alleged incident forming the basis

1“ BNSS ”

CRL.M.C.4285/2025 Page1of of the complaint took place in District Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh, which falls entirely outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Trial Court at Delhi. Furthermore, the complaint, on its face, fails to satisfy the foundational requirement of making or publishing any specific imputation against the Petitioners that would amount to defamation under the IPC . The Petitioners further contend that the allegation regarding circulation of a purported video on social media, which allegedly went “viral”, is wholly speculative and unsupported by any cogent material or documentary proof placed on record. It is thus argued that the Trial Court, without due application of judicial mind, in a mechanical manner, proceeded to issue the impugned summoning order, thereby gravely prejudicing the rights of the Petitioners and compelling them to face unwarranted criminal proceedings.

3. Heard. It is no doubt well established that this Court possesses inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now mirrored in Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ) to quash criminal proceedings even at the preliminary stage. However, such jurisdiction is to be exercised with great caution, sparingly, and only in exceptional circumstances where the continuation of proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law or where the allegations, even if taken at face value and accepted in their entirety, do not disclose any offence whatsoever. The Supreme Court, in a catena of judgments has categorically laid down that the power to quash should not be used to stifle legitimate prosecution at the threshold and that, ordinarily, criminal proceedings should be allowed to proceed unhindered if the complaint discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. The guiding test is whether, assuming all allegations in the complaint to be true and CRL.M.C.4285/2025 Page2of without embarking on any meticulous examination of the evidence or entering into disputed questions of fact, the ingredients of the alleged offences are prima facie made out. If so, the Court must refrain from interfering at this preliminary stage, allowing the matter to be examined through the regular process of trial. Thus, in the present case as well, the touchstone for interference remains whether, on a plain reading of the complaint and accompanying documents, no offence is disclosed against the Petitioners. If the allegations, as framed, prima facie satisfy the essential ingredients of the alleged offences, the Court would not be justified in exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction to quash the proceedings.

4. The Respondent/Complainant is an advocate by profession, practising at Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. There e