Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 7230

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Neena Bansal Krishna, J
SHRIJEET RAMAKANT MISHRA – Appellant
Versus
The State – Respondent
CRL.M.C. 4233/2018 | CRL.M.C. 559/2019 | CRL.M.C. 720/2019

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Pavan Narang, Mr. Himanshu Sethi, Ms. Ashwarya Chhabra
For the Respondents: Mr. Shoaib Haider, Mr. Sahil Chopra, Mr. Mukesh R. Yadav, Mr. Yash Tewari

Defamation under IPC requires proof of intent to harm; statements made in the context of public concern are not defamatory if they are not deliberately false or malicious.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 499 and 500 - Defamation - Petitioners sought to quash a summoning order for defamation based on allegations made by the complainant regarding comments made during a televised debate. The court held that the complaint did not establish the essential ingredients of defamation as it failed to show that the alleged remarks were made with the intention to harm the reputation of the complainant, and thus quashed the criminal proceedings. (Paras 102, 103)

Facts of the case:
The complainant alleged that the Petitioner, Arnab Goswami, and others made derogatory statements during a televised debate, labelling him as a 'Gunda Lawyer' and 'Hooligan,' leading to significant reputational damage. The complainant's allegations rested on these remarks aired in the context of violence at a court.

Findings of Court:
The court found insufficient evidence of defamatory intent and stated that the comments were merely expressions of opinion on conduct related to public events without malicious intent.

Issues: The primary issue addressed was whether the comments made in a public forum constituted defamation and whether they were protected by freedom of speech provisions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that the essence of defamation requires proof of malicious intent behind the statements, which was absent in this case. The remarks, while perhaps in poor taste, did not diminish the complainant's reputation per se. The court also noted that the rights to freedom of speech and reputation must be balanced and the statements did not amount to defamation.

Result: Petitions allowed and the Complaint Case No. 9922/2017 quashed.

Table of Content
1. overview of the background facts and context. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. nature of the complaint and allegations of defamation. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
3. procedure leading to the summoning order. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
4. legal arguments regarding the jurisdiction and procedural compliance. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)
5. arguments against the validity of claims made by the complainant. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44)
6. discussion on reputation and defamation. (Para 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49)
7. defining defamation and essential elements. (Para 50 , 51 , 52 , 53)
8. legal interpretation of corporate liability. (Para 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60)
9. vicarious liability and individual accountability. (Para 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66)
10. discussion of evidential standards for liability. (Para 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73)
11. analysis of the specifics regarding editorial control and liability. (Para 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83)
12. intent and knowledge in establishing defamation. (Para 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90)
13. balancing freedom of speech and right to reputation. (Para 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96)
14. analysis of specific allegations and their implications. (Para 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101)
15. final decision to quash the complaint. (Para 102 , 103)

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. The aforesaid three Petitions are being decided together as they arise out of the same facts and involve similar question.

2. The Petitioners, namely, Shrijeet Ramakant Mishra (CRL. M.C. 4233/2018); Samir Jain, Vineet Jain, Indu Jain (CRL. M.C. 559/2019) and Arnab Goswami (CRL. M.C. 720/2018) have filed the aforesaid Petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “ Cr.P.C .”) seeking quashing of the summoning Order dated 28.02.2018 whereby the Petitioners have been summoned for offences under Section 499 /500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “ IPC ”) and quashing of the Criminal Complaint No. 9922/2017 titled “Vikram Singh Chauhan vs. Arnab Goswami and Ors.”.

Background of the Events:-

3. The Complainant/Respondent No. 2 is an Advocate by Profession who has filed the Complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C . against the Petitioners herein, for offence under Section 499 /500 IPC .

4. The backdrop of the Complaintwasthat on 09.02.2016, a cultural event titled “A Country Without a Post Office” was organized by students at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), Delhi, during which some students allegedly raised anti-national slogans. FIR was registered under Sections 124A and 120B IPCon 12.02.2016, and Kanhaiya Kumar,JNU Student Union President, was arrested. He was producedat the Patiala House Court Complex for remand on 15.02.2016. There were scuffles and sloganeering and violent assaults were carried out against students, teachers, and journalists by certain individuals, including Advocate Vikram Singh Chauhan (Respondent No. 2 herein), Yashpal Singh, and Om Sharma, despite police presence, resulting in the registration of FIR No. 69/2016.

5. The episode wasrecorded and widely reported by National Mediaon 19.02.2016including the “Times Now” TV Channel.The regarding this incident of 15.02.2016.Bar Council of India (BCI) also condemned the violence and constituted a Fact-Finding Committee.

6. A Writ Petition was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court seeking protection for Kanhaiya Kumar. On 17.02.2016, the Court passed directions to ensure security and restricted entry to the court premises during his hearing.Despite this Order, incident of violence occurred again at the Patiala House Court premises on 17.02.2016, and Kanhaiya Kumar along with some journalists, was assaulted and another FIR No. 75/2016 was registered. The Supreme Court deputed a lawyers’ team to investigate. BCI extended the scope of its inquiry to include the second incident.

7. Various ne

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 7230

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHINeena Bansal Krishna, JSHRIJEET RAMAKANT MISHRA – AppellantVersusThe State – RespondentCRL.M.C. 4233/2018 | CRL.M.C. 559/2019 | CRL.M.C. 720/2019

Defamation under IPC requires proof of intent to harm; statements made in the context of public concern are not defamatory if they are not deliberately false or malicious.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Neena Bansal Krishna, J
SHRIJEET RAMAKANT MISHRA – Appellant
Versus
The State – Respondent
CRL.M.C. 4233/2018 | CRL.M.C. 559/2019 | CRL.M.C. 720/2019