The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, has quashed criminal proceedings for defamation against M/s Rajasthan Patrika Pvt. Ltd. and its Editor-in-Chief Gulab Kothari, holding that the summoning process was an abuse of the process of law where the complaint and evidence did not attribute any specific role, intention or knowledge to the petitioners in the alleged defamatory publication.
Justice Ashok Kumar Jain allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC and set aside the cognizance order dated April 7, 2004, as well as the revisional order dated November 11, 2005, which had upheld the cognizance against the petitioners under Sections 500, 501 and 502 IPC.
The case arose from a complaint filed in August 2003 by a practising lawyer, who alleged that a campaign involving distribution of pamphlets, sloganeering and announcements through loudspeakers, followed by publication of a news report in Rajasthan Patrika, was intended to defame him. The complainant had also relied upon a news report published in Dainik Bhaskar concerning the demonstration.
The petitioners argued that there was no specific allegation explaining their role in the preparation, printing or publication of the pamphlets or the demonstration. They contended that the news report had been sent by a local correspondent and that there was no material showing any conspiracy or meeting of minds between the newspaper management and the other accused persons.
The High Court examined the complaint and the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC and found that no specific role had been attributed to Rajasthan Patrika or Gulab Kothari. The Court noted that although the newspaper was referred to in the complaint, there was no material demonstrating that the petitioners had participated in the demonstration, distribution of pamphlets or loudspeaker announcements, or had conspired with the other accused. The statements of the supporting witnesses also did not establish their involvement.
The Court further held that, for an offence of defamation under Section 499 IPC, it is necessary to establish the requisite intention, knowledge or reason to believe that the imputation would harm the reputation of the person concerned. It noted that a newspaper company cannot automatically be held liable merely because it owns the newspaper; its management’s intention, knowledge or reason to believe in relation to the allegedly defamatory publication must be established.
The Court also referred to the constitutional protection of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and the Supreme Court’s decisions recognising the need to protect journalistic freedom while balancing it against the right to reputation.
Referring to the exceptions to Section 499 IPC, the Court noted that statements made in good faith in matters of public interest, fair criticism and accurate reporting of judicial proceedings, among other protected categories, are not treated as defamation. It also reiterated that a publication made in good faith, where the accused bona fide believes the version to be true, would not by itself establish an intention to harm reputation.
Importantly, the Court emphasised that summoning an accused is a serious matter and criminal law cannot be set into motion mechanically. It held that where the complaint and material before the Magistrate do not disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offence or assign a specific role to the accused, the Court cannot routinely issue process.
The High Court ultimately concluded that the cognizance and summoning order against the petitioners had been passed without evidence establishing their role or involvement and that continuation of the proceedings would undermine the freedom of the press. It consequently held the proceedings to be an abuse of the process of law and quashed them.
