Cognizance For Defamation Offence Can Be Undertaken Only On Complaint Filed By Aggrieved Person & Not On FIR: Delhi High Court

The High Court was considering a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking setting aside of a Summoning Order in a case filed under Section 66-A IT Act/500 IPC. The same had been modified by the ASJ, to be confined to Section 500 IPC.

The Single Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held, “...the cognizance for the offence under Section 500 IPC could have been undertaken only on a Complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C filed by the “Person Aggrieved”; no cognizance for the offence under Section 500 IPC can be taken on an FIR. Furthermore, even the contents of the Complaint; do not prima facie establish any case of defamation.”

Advocate Puneet Goel represented the Petitioner, while APP Satinder Singh Bawa represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

A written Complaint was made by one Yogdhyan Ahuja, saying that he is working as Chairman in Vivekanand School, and the Petitioner Praveen Arya, was a suspended employee of the school who had been charge sheeted, and Enquiry Proceedings were initiated against him. The Petitioner (accused in the Complaint) was alleged to have been making defamatory statements reflecting his bitter, inimical attitude towards the Complainant, and it was alleged that he was bent upon causing harm to his reputation.

It was claimed that he had been sending SMS and had also formed a group in the name of Vivekanand School Manoranjan Kendra on his Facebook and had printed, published and circulated various posts on that group. Considering that Yog Dhyan Ahuja is also a BJP Leader, it was intended that users/viewers of the group may readily assume that the abusive language against the Congress (I) leaders emanated or were supported by Ahuja. It was thus submitted that the accused was liable for the offences under Sections 383/420/499 and 500 IPC. An FIR came to be registered.

The MM took the cognisance on the Complaint. The Petitioner, aggrieved by the Summoning Order, preferred a Revision Petition before the ASJ . The ASJ noted that Section 66-A IT Act had been declared unconstitutional by the Apex Court in the case of Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India (2015). It was further ordered that the Chargesheet be treated as a Complainant and the matter be proceeded with as a Complaint Case. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner approached the High Court.

Reasoning

The Bench noted the the offence under Section 500 IPC is non-cognizable and bailable offence and the procedure for initiating any Complaint for defamation, has been specifically provided under Section 199 Cr.P.C. Referring to section 199, the Bench explained that being a non-cognizable offence, only a Complaint can be filed before the Trial Court by the aggrieved person and it is only on the Complaint that the cognizance can be taken. There cannot be any FIR, it being a non-cognizable offence.

“In the present case, the FIR could not have been registered under Section 500 IPC, in view of the express bar under Section 199 Cr.P.C”, it said while also adding, “Irrespective of there being other Sections involved in the FIR or not, the cognizance under Section 500 could have been only on the Complaint and not on the FIR.”

It was further noticed that the IO was merely the Investigating Officer conducting the investigations in the Complaint, and by no stretch of interpretation could be termed as an ‘aggrieved person’. “In the present case, the only person aggrieved was the Complainant/Respondent No.2, and he cannot be substituted by the Investigating Officer”, it stated.

On the issue of whether any defamation was made out from the two SMSs and the Facebook post, the Bench explained that in order to constitute ‘defamation’ under Section 499, there must be an “imputation” with the “intention” to harm the reputation of the person about whom such imputation is made. It would have to be shown that the accused intended or knew or had the reason to believe that such imputation would harm the reputation of the complainant or that he would be directly or indirectly suffered by it.

It was noticed by the Bench that the Facebook Group was notified in the name of Vivekanand School Manoranjan Kendra. The Bench clarified that merely because the Facebook account had been opened in the name of the School would not in itself lead to any inference of it being defamatory. Also, the name itself stated “Manoranjan Kendra” and by no stretch could it be considered to depict the Official web-site of the School. Furthermore, the post related to the disquiet and dissatisfaction of the Petitioner with the present day government, which did not speak anything about the school and couldn’t be said to be defamatory where the Complainant was concerned. The SMSs in question also did not show any defamatory, derogatory or false statements. It merely stated the reference to the various facts arising from the litigation undertaken by the Petitioner and the Employees. The contents of the two SMSs, did not get covered in the definition of defamation.

Thus, setting aside the Summoning Orders and discharging the Petitioner, the Bench asked the Petitioner to deposit the Cost of Rs. 20,000 with the Advocates Welfare Fund.

Cause Title: Sh. Praveen Arya v. The State of NCT of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:4239)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocate Puneet Goel

Respondent: APP Satinder Singh Bawa

Click here to read/download Order