Read Time: 12 minutes

The Delhi High Court has recently quashed the defamation complaint filed by Lohitaksha Shukla against Business Standard Journalist Mitali Saran regarding an article under her authorship titled “The Long and Short of it” published on 18.03.2016. 

“The complainant has not been able to show as to how he is the “person aggrieved” within the definition of Section 199(1) Cr.P.C. and thus, the contents of complaint suffers from vices of illegality or infirmity. Even the complainant is not a part of “identifiable class” or definite “association or collection of persons” as enumerated in Explanation (2) to Section 499 of IPC.”, Single Bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait noted. 

In the present matter, the complainant Lohitaksha Shukla, an advocate who claimed himself to be a Swayamsewak of RSS, has filed a defamation complaint against Business Standard Journalist Mitali Saran with respect to an article under her authorship titled “The Long and Short of it” published on 18.03.2016. Complainant filed the same on the ground that the article in question had adversely affected his reputation as an RSS member. In the complaint, he had alleged that the article was not based on facts and contained some defamatory insinuations against RSS and its members, as it accused members of RSS being oppressive to Indians, mentally disturbed and disrespectful to Indian National Symbols ridden with psychosexual complexes, practitioners of discrimination based on caste and physically unfit. After examining the complainant in the pre-summoning evidence and considering the provisions of Sections 203/204 Cr.P.C. and Section 499 IPC, the Ld Metropolitan Magistrate passed an order summoning the accused. Thus the petitioners filed a petition quashing the summoning order & the complaint on the ground that if a Magistrate were to take cognizance of the offence of defamation on a complaint filed by one who was not an “aggrieved person”, the trial and conviction of an accused in such a case by the Magistrate would be void and illegal. 

The Bench observed that the Trial Court has erred in not applying its mind on the aspect of the complainant not leading any evidence to establish how his reputation was harmed or his moral or intellectual character was lowered due to the article. Also, the Bench observed that the complainant has failed to prove that the article brought any kind of defamation to him or lowered the reputation of RSS in the eyes of his friends. 

“The complainant has only claimed that he was asked by his friends to leave RSS as a result of this article but he has not brought anyone in the witness box in support of this assertion. The complainant claims himself to be Swayamsewak of RSS and its members. But again, he hasn’t got any witness examined from RSS or brought any material on record to prove that he is a member of RSS. ”, the Court noted. 

Reliance was placed on Tek Chand Gupta Vs. R.K. Karanja and Others 1967 SCC OnLine All 282, in which the complainant was a member of a body of large size & scope of which was too wide. Therefore in this case, the Court held that, 

“Defamation of a class or body of person & a complaint by an individual member of the class or body cannot be said to be maintainable” 

to further observe that the complainant did not fall within the category of “aggrieved person” as he failed to prove that he was a member of RSS nor he placed anything on record to prove it. 

In this context, the Bench said, 

“The aforenoted provisions of Section 199 (1) Cr.P.C. mandates that the Magistrate can take cognizance of the offence only upon receiving a complaint by a person who is aggrieved. The purpose and intent of this provision is to limit the power of Magistrate to take cognizance of offences pertaining to defamation in order to prevent and discourage the filing of frivolous complaints.”

Reference was also made to the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mehmood UL Rehman Vs. Khazir Mohammad Tunda & Ors. (2015) 12 SCC 420 to elaborate on the scope of “opinion of Magistrate” on sufficient ground for proceeding to issue process to the accused. The Bench in this case observed that, 

“ 20. The extensive reference to the case law would clearly show that cognizance of an offence on complaint is taken for the purpose of issuing process to the accused. Since it is a process of taking judicial notice of certain facts which constitute an offence, there has to be application of mind as to whether the allegations in the complaint, when considered along with the statements recorded or the inquiry conducted thereon, would constitute violation of law so as to call a person to appear before the criminal court. It is not a mechanical process or matter of course. As held by this Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. to set in motion the process of criminal law against a person is a serious matter.”

Thus the Court ordered for dismissal of the complaint & quashed the proceedings emanating therefrom.

“The explanation 4 of Section 499 IPC mandates that imputation can be said to harm a person’s reputation only if it directly or indirectly lowers the moral and intellectual character of that person or of his calling or the credit of that person in the estimation of others. This requirement has not been satisfied in the present case.”, the Bench also noted.  

Case Title: Business Standard Pvt Ltd & Anr. V. Lohitaksha Shukla & Anr.

Law Point/ Statute Involved: Section 499 & 500 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 & Section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973