Back
Truthful Reporting of FIR Details Cannot Be Called Defamation, Rules HP High Court
The has delivered a significant ruling protecting journalists and complainants who approach the police, holding that the mere publication of FIR contents in a newspaper and the filing of a complaint with law enforcement do not amount to .
Dispute Originated from a Shrineside Business Rivalry
Priests Parveen Kalia and Sumant Kalia accused shop owner Rajesh Kalia of filing false police complaints in over alleged business rivalry near the Mata Chintpurni Shrine. They further alleged that journalist Surinder Sharma published a news report in Una Kesari based on those complaints, thereby lowering their reputation among relatives and the public. The priests filed a under before the , leading to a summoning order against both accused.
Arguments Advanced by the Petitioners
Counsel for the petitioners contended that a was impermissible, that the editor of the newspaper had not been impleaded, and that Rajesh Kalia’s complaints to the police were protected by the exceptions to . They further argued that the petitioners resided outside the of the Amb court and that the Magistrate had failed to conduct a mandatory inquiry under .
Respondents’ Defence of the Complaint
The respondents countered that repetition of a libel remains punishable and that Surinder Sharma could not escape liability merely by reproducing FIR contents. They maintained that the editor was not a necessary party and that the complaint was maintainable as filed.
Court’s Careful Examination of Precedents and Legal Principles
Justice Rakesh Kainthla examined the settled principles governing quashing under , drawing guidance from and subsequent Supreme Court decisions. The Court first rejected the objection to a , holding that the permits multiple complainants when the cause of action is identical.
On , the Court clarified that Una and Amb fall within the same district and that Magistrates appointed for the district possess jurisdiction throughout its territory. Most crucially, the Court held that complaints made to the police and the subsequent publication of FIR contents enjoy statutory protection.
Pivotal Observations from the Bench
“It was held by this Court in that a complaint made to the police and the investigation conducted pursuant to it are protected under .”
“It was laid down in that publication of the contents of the F.I.R. does not constitute the commission of an offence punishable under .”
“If it was held so, then no reporting of news could be made till the outcome of the investigation or the final orders of the last Court. It would deprive the public of the right to know the happenings.”
Justice Kainthla also cited and to reinforce that accurate reporting of public-domain information, including FIR registration, serves the and attracts no defamation liability.
Complaint and Summons Order Quashed
Allowing both petitions, the Court quashed Complaint No. 08-I-2022 dated along with the consequential summoning order dated . The decision underscores that journalists performing their duty of truthful reporting and citizens legitimately approaching the police remain shielded by the exceptions to .
This verdict is expected to provide significant relief to the print media and reinforce the principle that the mere filing and reporting of an FIR, without added falsehoods or malicious innuendo, cannot be weaponised into a criminal prosecution.
