Delhi High Court Quashed Criminal Defamation Case Against Business Standard Journalist Mitali Saran; Complainant Couldn't Produce Evidence

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• The Delhi High Court quashed the criminal defamation case filed against Business Standard, journalist Mitali Saran on Monday. The defamation case was filed due to her alleged defamation article about the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), and the members.
• A lawyer and member accused journalist Mitali Saran of making defamatory statements against RSS in an article published in 2016.
• Respondents argued that this defamation complaint was only filed in order to harass the journalist and the newspaper Business Standard, and sought to quash the complaint.
• The single judge Bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait observed that the complainant, who is also an advocate by profession, failed to prove how he is an aggrieved person due to the said article.
• As per Section 199(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, A magistrate can only take cognizance of an offence once a person can provide evidence of how truly aggrieved they are, due to the alleged actions of the accused, and if they can not do so, they are prevented from entertaining the complaint any further.

INTRODUCTION

The Delhi High Court quashed the criminal defamation complaint on Monday, against Business Standard journalist Mitali Saran and others, for allegedly publishing an article with defamatory remarks made against Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), and its members. The complainant, a member of RSS, and also an advocate by profession- stated that his reputation was adversely damaged, and that the article accused RSS members of being oppressive to Indians, mentally disturbed and disrespectful to Indian national symbols, practitioners of caste discrimination, among other alleged accusations. A single judge bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait observed that the complaint was liable to be dismissed and was "not maintainable" since the complainant, Lohitaksh Shukla did not fall under the definition of "person aggrieved."

FURTHER DETAILS

The complainant Lohitaksha Shukla had filed a criminal defamation case against the newspaper Business Standard- author of article Mitali Saran, and also the editorial director AK Bhattacharya for publishing an article named "The long and Short of it" in March 2016. Shukla stated in his complaint that the facts of the article were false, not based on real events and also contained defamatory statements against the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and its members. He also alleged that as a Swayamsevak of RSS, his reputation was affected due to the defamation insinuations. The Court summoned the respondents, due to these claims. The respondents challenged these proceedings by stating that this was a complete abuse of the process of law, and that this complaint was only filed with the intention of harassing the respondents. When the Court asked to produce evidence of damage of reputation due to alleged defamation, the complainant couldn't produce any evidence, nor could he compel any of the RSS members to take a stance with him on this case. It was also observed that Shukla did not satisfy the definition of "person aggrieved" under Section 199(1) of CrPC.

WHAT'S HAPPENING NOW?

The Court observed that as per Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code- "In the present case, the complainant has not led any evidence to establish how his reputation was harmed or his moral or intellectual character was lowered as a result of the said article. However, he has claimed that he has been 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 and thereby, has failed to prove that article brought any kind of defamation to him or that it has lowered the reputation of RSS in the eyes of his friends or RSS. So, the trial court has erred in not applying its mind on this aspect." The Court also stated that the complainant failed to bring in any witnesses or produce evidence containing any damage to reputation because of the article, and also observed that the Court will only recognise the defamation as an offence if the person is aggrieved, as per Section 199(1) of CrPC. Such a provision prevents, or limits the magistrate's powers to take cognizance of offences like defamation, and also prohibits people from filing complaints, even though the alleged defamation is not really distressing to the complainant. Since the complainant failed to prove that he was aggrieved in any way, and also failed to produce witnesses or evidence to prove the same, the Delhi High Court quashed the criminal defamation case against the journalist Mitali Saran and others. 

CONCLUSION

"I have no hesitation to hold that the complaint in question is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. It is ordered accordingly. Consequently, proceedings emanating there-from are also quashed," the Court said. Usage of defamation to protect one's reputation has become a cliche at this point. The thin line between factual statements and defamatory statements blurred sometime during the various frivolous defamation cases. Such frivolity usually can end up being an abuse of the process of law, meaning people are taking advantage of the existence of that provision. Fortunately, there is a provision that allows the magistrate to take cognizance of offences only if the person is truly aggrieved, therefore eliminating and discouraging the chances of people filing frivolous defamation, or any complaints. In this case, the court held that "the complaint suffers from vices of illegality or infirmity."