Not Malafide Complaint: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses To Quash Defamation Case Against Kangana Ranaut Over Retweet On Farmers’ Protests

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to quash a defamation case against Bollywood actress and politician Kangana Ranaut over her retweet on farmers’ protests in the year 2021.

Kangana had filed a Petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), seeking quashing of criminal complaint under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) as well as the summoning order passed by the Magistrate along with all subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom.

A Single Bench of Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya observed, “A reading of the impugned order as a whole, makes it apparent that the Magistrate has duly applied mind to the material on record, and only after recording satisfaction that commission of offence under Sections 499 IPC is prima facie made out against the petitioner, the process has been issued, as discussed hereinbefore. Still further, because the respondent has filed a complaint only against the petitioner and not against the person to whom the original tweet has been attributed, in itself cannot be a ground to contend that the complaint is mala fide.”

The Bench said that merely because the Magistrate wrongly mentioned Kangana’s retweet as tweet in the impugned Order, it cannot be said that the same is a result of non-application of mind.

“It goes without saying, to find out non-application of mind the order is to be read in entirety”, it added.

Advocate Abhinav Sood represented the Petitioner while Senior Advocate G.K. Mann represented the Respondent.

Brief Facts

A Complaint was filed against the Petitioner-accused (Kangana Ranaut) with the allegations that the Complainant/Respondent belonged to an agricultural family as her father, husband, and children are farmers; income from agriculture is their only source of earning. She used to help her family members in cultivation of agricultural lands. Due to passing of certain new enactments by the Central Government pertaining to agriculturists, farmers in the States of Punjab and Haryana were protesting. As the Complainant’s family was also affected by the said enactments, they were actively participating in the protests being held under the aegis of different ‘kisan’ (farmer) unions. The Complainant was also part of ‘dharnas’ (sit-ins) and demonstrations since the beginning of the protest. Despite her old age, she along with other protesters went to Delhi to participate in the agitation. However, the Petitioner made a retweet consisting of her own comment about the Complainant on Twitter (now known as ‘X’) alleging,

“Ha ha ha she is the same dadi who featured in Time magazine for being the most powerful Indian…. And she is available in 100 rupees. Pakistani jurno’s have hijacked international PR for India in an embarrassing way. We need our own people to speak for us internationally.”

Along with the retweet, the Petitioner shared a tweet by a person carrying the Complainant’s image. It was also alleged that the Complainant had absolutely no concern with the lady (dadi) from Shaheen Bagh who featured in the ‘Time’ magazine, with whom she was compared in the tweet. Allegedly, the Petitioner made false imputation and defamatory remarks against her, hurting her pride, honour, and defaming her on social media. Hence, the Petitioner was summoned by the Magistrate and being aggrieved, she approached the High Court.

Reasoning

The High Court in the above regard, said, “A perusal of the Ninth Exception reproduced above shows it is meant to exclude from the offence of defamation an imputation which is made in good faith by a person for protection of his/her or someone else’s interests, or for the public good. The Tenth Exception excludes from defamation a caution which has been made in good faith and is intended for good of the person to whom it is conveyed or of some other person in whom that person might be interested, or for the public good. The petitioner’s case is that the Magistrate was mandatorily required to consider whether these Exceptions were attracted in her case.”

The Court reiterated that there is no explicit bar on the Magistrate precluding him from considering whether any of the Exceptions protect the person to be summoned; however, such non-consideration by itself would not render the order issuing process illegal.

“It is not a case that the complaint, supporting documents as well as the statements of witnesses before the Magistrate establish that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Ninth and Tenth Exception to Section 499 IPC, nor has learned counsel for the petitioner been able to show even prima facie as to how imputations in the retweet can be said to have been made by the petitioner in good faith for protection of her own interest or of anyone else, nor can it said to be for public good. Similarly, it could not be shown by him that the retweet was intended to convey a caution to the petitioner for her good. The defence under any of these Exceptions is, therefore, not revealed in any manner”, it added.

The Court was of the view that even if the Magistrate, under a misconception of law, refrained from looking into the Exceptions on the ground that it was not required to be done at the stage of issuing process, it is not fatal to the impugned order which has been passed after applying mind to the material on record in accordance with law.

“There is nothing on record, nor could any material be shown by learned counsel for the petitioner which prima facie indicates such an intention on the respondent’s part in filing the complaint in question. There are specific allegations against the petitioner who is a celebrity, that false and defamatory imputations by her in the retweet have dented the respondent’s reputation and lowered her in her own estimation, as also in the eyes of others. Therefore, filing of the complaint to vindicate her rights cannot be termed mala fide”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Petition.

Cause Title- Kangana Ranaut v. Mahinder Kaur (Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:097370)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Abhinav Sood, Anmol Gupta, Achintaya Soni, Mehndi Singhal, Dhruv Chowfla, and Nitesh Jhajhria.

Respondent: Senior Advocate G.K. Mann, Advocates Aditya Dassaur, and Armaan Sandhu.

Click here to read/download the Judgment