Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6787
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Amit Mahajan, J
ANJU RANI & ANR. – Appellant
Versus
RAJAN KHURANA – Respondent
CRL.M.C. 2459/2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Deepika V. Marwaha, Mr. Dhananjay Kaushal, Mr. Saksham Kalra, Mr. Aaryan Sharma, Mr. Tanishq Sharma
For the Respondents:Respondent in person
The court ruled that the issuance of summons for defamation lacked jurisdiction, as it was based on a complaint that did not meet statutory requirements, and clarified the limitation period for such complaints.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 499, 500, 211, 120B - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 204, 468 - Defamation and issuance of summons - The Trial Court dismissed a defamation complaint for lack of evidence that claims were false or defamatory. The Revisional Court erroneously summoned petitioners under Section 211 IPC without a requisite complaint from the court, violating Section 195 CrPC. The court also examined the limitation period for filing defamation complaints, ultimately finding that the complaint was barred due to delay. (Paras 1-35)
(B) Procedural Requirements - Issuance of summons must reflect judicial consideration; routine issuance of summons is not acceptable. (Paras 15-16)
(C) Jurisdiction and Limitation - Complaints regarding defamation need to be filed within one year from occurrence; delayed complaints cannot seek to expand scope through misapplication of law. (Paras 9, 10, 32, 33)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition challenged the revisional court's order on procedural grounds. (Para 2) |
| 2. background facts regarding the alleged assault and subsequent complaints. (Para 3 , 4 , 6) |
| 3. filing motions regarding refutations against prior complaints. (Para 5) |
| 4. argument concerning the limitation period and non-compliance with legal requirements. (Para 8 , 10 , 28) |
| 5. observations on the jurisdiction and legal processes related to defamation. (Para 15 , 22 , 24) |
| 6. outcome of the petition and result of fault in the previous court's reasoning. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 7. evaluation of jurisdiction and procedural grounds for summoning. (Para 23) |
| 8. clarification of the limitation period on defamation complaints. (Para 33 , 35) |
2. By the order dated 26.09.2019, the learned Trial Court dismissed the complaint filed by the respondent/ complainant under Sections 499/500 of the IPC on the ground that the complaints and the RTIs filed by the petitioners were only in the nature of seeking information and taking action against the complainant and his wife. It was observed that no evidence was brought on record by the complainant to show that the allegations made by the accused persons were false or were made with the intention to lower the image of the complainant and his wife.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are, that the wife of the complainant, namely– Mrs. Sanjeevan Prakash, is working as Senior Finance and Accounts Officer at IARI, Pusa, and the petitioners are the neighbors of the complainant. Petitioner No. 2 is also working as a Technical Officer at NBPGR, Pusa Campus. It is alleged that on 18.06.2008, Petitioner No. 2 assaulted the complainant and his wife. The complainant is stated to have been taken to Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital. It is alleged that the complainant was unable to state the correct facts at the time of the MLC as he was under threat and fear and hadwrongly stated that he suffered the injuries due to a fall. It is alleged that the complainant underwent a major operation for his dislocated jaw.
4. It is alleged that the incident was reported to Dr. S.K. Sharma, Director, who assured the complainant that departmental action would be taken against Petitioner No. 2. However, no such action was initiated. Consequently, on a complaint given by the complainant, FIR No. 91/2008 dated 25.07.2008 came to be registered, under Sections 325/506/509 of the IPC against the petitioners. It is further alleged that, as a counterblast to the said FIR, the petitioners, in collusion with another accused namely– Veersain, registered false and frivolous complaints against the complainant and his wife, thereby tarnishing their reputation.
5. It is alleged that Petitioner No. 1, who is the wife of Petitioner No. 2, acting in concert with other accused persons, lodged a false complaint against the complainant before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, pertaining to an imaginary incident of eve-teasing, said to have occurred on 22.06.2022. This resulted in the registration of FIR No. 99/2008 dated 07.08.2008 under Sections 506/509/34 of the IPC against the complainant. The complainant is however stated to be discharged vide order dated 03.09.2011, for the allegations having been found to be motivated.
6. It is alleged that Petitioner No. 2 started obtaining personal information regarding the complainant, in order to defame and harass him. An RTI application is stated to have been filed by Veersain, against the complainant seeking information regarding his habit of consuming liquor, afeem and gambling and his bad behaviour towards girls and women. It is alleged that due to the RTIs filed by them, the wife of the complainant was often called for explanations by the concerned authorities and was subjected to humiliation. It is alleged that the petitioners started filing complaints against the wife of the complainant and made allegations that she abused her official powers and had misused the CGHS token, thereby causing loss to the Govt. of
