Magisterial Direction for Investigation of Non-Cognizable Defamation Cases Under Section 155(2) CrPC Upheld: Punjab and Haryana High Court - 2025-08-06

Bridging the Gap: High Court Clarifies Investigative Powers in Criminal Defamation

In a significant clarification of procedural law, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has affirmed the power of a Magistrate to direct an investigation into non-cognizable offences, including criminal defamation, under Section 155 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The ruling settles a lingering procedural ambiguity regarding whether the inherent bars on police involvement in defamation cases preclude all forms of investigatory direction.

A Dispute Over Online Content

The matter arose from a complaint filed by one Gopal Goyal Kumar, who alleged that his reputation had been damaged by online content. Following a "cease and desist" notice sent to tech giants including Google, YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter, a criminal complaint was filed against the petitioner.

Although police initial reports suggested that no cognizable offence was committed, they acknowledged the prima facie existence of defamation. Seeking justice, the complainant moved before a Judicial Magistrate in Gurugram, who invoked Section 155 (2) Cr.P.C. to order the registration of a non-cognizable report (NCR) and subsequent investigation.

The Legal Tug-of-War

The petitioner challenged the Magistrate’s order, arguing that criminal defamation, governed by Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ), is strictly personal. Relying on precedents like Kanhaiya Lal v. State of U.P. , the petitioner contended that Section 199 of the Cr.P.C. acts as a complete bar on police investigations, mandating that such grievances be addressed exclusively through private complaints rather than police-led inquiry.

Conversely, the State emphasized a crucial procedural distinction: the Magistrate had not ordered the registration of an FIR (a mechanism for cognizable offences under Section 156 (3)), but had instead opted for the specific, restricted pathway of a non-cognizable investigation under Section 155 (2).

Decoding the Procedural Nuances

In its analysis, the High Court identified the fundamental difference between the two sections. While Section 199 indeed bars the police from initiating a suo motu investigation via an FIR in defamation cases, it does not strip the Magistrate of the authority to oversee a non-cognizable investigation when the facts warrant it.

Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya noted that the Magistrate followed the law by directing an NCR registration—a procedural necessity for non-cognizable offences—rather than circumventing the law with a full-blown FIR. By formalizing this distinction, the court ensured that the complainant’s right to seek state-assisted investigation for a non-cognizable offence remains protected, provided it stays within the safeguards of Section 155 (2).

Key Observations

• "The Magistrate upon hearing the complaint, passed the impugned order... directing the Station House Officer (SHO) concerned to register a non-cognizable case and conduct investigation."
• "No police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial."
• "Investigation in the case has been carried out on the basis of complaint by the second respondent disclosing non-cognizable offence against the petitioner... the Magistrate has the jurisdiction to issue such a direction to investigate a non-cognizable case under Section 155 (2) Cr.P.C."

Decision and Impact

The High Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the magistrate’s procedure was perfectly aligned with the Cr.P.C. This decision acts as a beacon for lower courts, clarifying that, while criminal defamation is a private matter, it is not immune to state-supervised investigation if authorized by a Magistrate through the correct procedural lens. For legal practitioners handling defamation suits, this judgment provides a clear roadmap: ensuring the correct application of Section 155 (2) is the key to maintaining the validity of an investigation in the absence of a cognizable offence.