The Delhi High Court has quashed criminal defamation proceedings against senior advocate Pinaki Misra, holding that continuation of the proceedings would not serve the ends of justice in the absence of sufficient material to prima facie establish that the alleged defamatory statement was made by him or that it had lowered the complainant’s reputation.
Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma allowed Pinaki Misra’s petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and set aside the summoning order issued by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in a complaint alleging an offence under Section 500 of the IPC.
The case arose from a complaint filed after an article published in The Economic Times reported on a complaint made against Misra before the Bar Council of Delhi. Misra had denied the allegations in his response and had referred to the complainant as a crook. The complainant subsequently initiated criminal defamation proceedings against him.
The High Court noted that the complainant had examined himself as the sole witness and had not placed independent material showing that the alleged imputation had lowered his reputation in the estimation of others, as contemplated under Explanation 4 to Section 499 IPC.
The Court further noted that the alleged imputation was based on an online news report which was not supported by examination of the reporter, author, editor or any other person associated with the news portal. Since Misra had specifically denied making the alleged statement and had also sought clarification, the Court found insufficient foundational material to subject him to a criminal trial.
Relying, inter alia, on precedents concerning the evidentiary value of newspaper reports, the Court observed that a news report is, at best, hearsay or secondary evidence and its contents must be duly proved. Mere production of a report, without examination of the person who authored or reported the alleged statement, cannot by itself establish that the statement was made by the accused.
The Court consequently held that permitting the criminal proceedings to continue would not advance the cause of justice and quashed the summoning order and all consequential proceedings arising from the complaint.
