Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 499, 500 — Criminal defamation — Essential ingredients — Imputation lowering reputation in estimation of others — Intention or knowledge to harm — Absence thereof
Private complaint alleging defamatory news articles questioning authenticity of paintings proposed for auction — Complaint based substantially on complainant’s self-assessment of harm — No witness examined to show lowering of reputation in estimation of third persons — No material to show actual damage, loss, or failure of auction — Held, basic ingredients of offence under S.499 IPC not made out.
[Paras 20, 22]
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S.202 (as amended in 2005) — Mandatory inquiry — Accused residing outside territorial jurisdiction
All accused residing outside jurisdiction of Magistrate — Magistrate issued summons without conducting inquiry or examining witnesses other than complainant — Non-compliance with mandatory requirement under S.202(1) CrPC — Summoning order vitiated — Proceedings liable to be quashed.
[Paras 19.3, 20]
Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 — Ss. 5 & 7 — Statutory presumption — Editor vis-à-vis other functionaries
Statutory presumption of responsibility attaches only to “Editor” whose name is printed — No such presumption against Editorial Director, Chief Editor, Managing Editor, etc. — Such persons can be proceeded against only upon specific averments showing control over selection of content — General or bald allegation insufficient.
[Paras 19.1–19.2]
Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 499, 500 — Liability of media personnel — Requirement of specific role
Single complaint filed against multiple accused for different articles published on different dates in different editions — Magistrate and High Court failed to consider articles individually authored by each accused — Vicarious or collective liability impermissible in absence of specific allegations — Proceedings unsustainable.
[Paras 20]
Criminal proceedings — Abuse of process — When liable to be quashed
Proceedings initiated long after auction concluded — No material showing auction failure or reputational damage — Similar complaint by same complainant earlier quashed by Supreme Court — Remand for fresh inquiry would serve no useful purpose — Ends of justice require quashing of proceedings.
[Paras 20, 22]
Constitution of India — Art. 19(1)(a) — Freedom of speech and expression — Role and responsibility of media
Freedom of speech paramount — Media wields significant influence on public opinion — Journalists and editors required to act with accuracy, fairness, public interest and good faith — Balance between free press and protection of reputation reiterated.
[Para 21]
ANALYSIS OF LAW AND FACTS
1. Issue Framed by the Court
The central issue was whether the High Court was justified in refusing to quash criminal defamation proceedings initiated against media personnel and editorial functionaries under Sections 499 and 500 IPC.
[Para 1]
2. Nature of the Complaint
A single private complaint was filed against 14 accused concerning different news articles, published on different dates, in different newspapers, across multiple States, allegedly questioning the authenticity of paintings proposed for auction by the complainant.
[Paras 3, 14]
3. Procedural Illegality — Section 202 CrPC
The Court treated non-compliance with Section 202 CrPC as a fatal defect, noting that:
All appellants resided outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate.
No inquiry was conducted.
No witnesses, apart from the complainant, were examined.
The summoning order was therefore procedurally unsustainable.
[Paras 19.3, 20]
4. Editorial Director — Absence of Statutory Presumption
In respect of the Editorial Director (A2), the Court held that:
Statutory presumption under the Press Act applies only to the Editor.
Editorial Director can be proceeded against only upon specific pleadings showing control over content.
Mere assertion that he “oversaw publications” is legally insufficient.
Accordingly, proceedings against A2 were held not maintainable.
[Paras 19.1–19.3]
5. Individual Authors — Failure to Examine Articles Separately
The Court found that neither the Magistrate nor the High Court examined the individual articles authored by each accused. Reliance on one article to sustain proceedings against all accused was held impermissible in criminal defamation law.
[Para 20]
6. Absence of Defamation on Merits
The Court noted:
No witness came forward to show that reputation was lowered in the estimation of others.
No evidence of loss, damage, or unsuccessful auction.
Complaint rested on complainant’s subjective perception.
Thus, the substantive ingredients of Section 499 IPC were not satisfied.
[Paras 20, 22]
7. Exercise of Inherent Jurisdiction
Considering delay, lack of evidence, procedural illegality, and earlier quashing of similar proceedings by the same complainant, the Court held that continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process.
[Paras 20, 22]
8. Final Holding
The appeals were allowed; the High Court judgment, summoning orders, and criminal complaint were quashed in respect of all appellants.
[Para 22]
No comments:
Post a Comment