No Prima Facie Indication That Imputation Was Published To Harm Reputation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Defamation Case Against Tribune Editors & Reporters

The petitions before the High Court were filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) for quashing the criminal complaint registered under Sections 500 and 120-B of IPC read with Sections 66 and 67 of the Information Technology Act. The Petitioners also sought quashing of the orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Mansa, whereby petitioners, namely, Rajesh Ramachandran and Dr. Swaraj Bir Singh were summoned to face trial for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 500, 501 and 502 IPC. The second Petitioners, in both the Petitions, namely, Parvesh Sharma and Gurdeep Singh Lali were summoned under Section 500 IPC.

The Single Bench of Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya said, “...no material has been brought on record to even prima facie indicate that the petitioners had reported or published the imputation concerning the complainant to harm his reputation, or knowing or having reason to believe that it would cause harm to his reputation. The reason cited by the CJM in the impugned order, dated 14.12.2020, “…despite having knowledge or reason to believe that such an imputation will harm the reputation of tcomplainant, communicated it further for Printing and Publishing…” is without any evidence at all, and that is why none finds reference in support thereof.”

Advocate Manu K. Bhandari represented the Petitioners, while AAG Satjot Singh Chahal represented the Respondents.

Factual Background

At the time of passing the impugned order, the petitioners Rajesh Ramachandran was working as the Editor of the newspaper ‘The Tribune (English)’ Parvesh Sharma was working as its Principal Correspondent, Dr. Swaraj Bir Singh was working as Editor of newspaper ‘The Punjabi Tribune’, and Gurdeep Singh Lali was its stringer and contributed news from Sangrur and nearby areas.

On April 27, 2019, the then convener of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) in Punjab and Member of Parliament (MP) from Sangrur, Bhagwant Singh Mann held a press conference stating that the second respondetn/complainant, the then AAP party Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) from Mansa, got a huge amount of money from ruling Congress party and would be appointed as Chairman of the Punjab Pollution Control. The news item to that effect was published in the columns of ‘The Tribune’.

The complainant filed a criminal complaint against nine persons, including MP Bhagwant Singh Mann, the press reporters, and the Editors of different newspapers, wherein the aforementioned statement of the MP was published. It was alleged that the petitioners had published false allegations against the complainant, who never received the amount as alleged, only to harass, humiliate and defame him. The Chief Judicial Magistrate ordered an investigation and summoned the petitioners as well as the remaining accused to face trial.

Arguments

It was contended by the Petitioners that the allegations levelled against the complainant by MP Bhagwant Mann had been truthfully reported and printed by them without any intention to harm the former’s reputation. Accordingly, they are protected by the First Exception to Section 499 IPC.

Reasoning

The Bench explained that the First Exception to Section 499 IPC excludes an imputation from defamation if it is true concerning the person and it is for public good that the imputation should be made or published. “Merely because the petitioners accurately reported the allegations in the newspapers, would not bring them within the exception unless it was established that the imputation to the complainant’s character and conduct in accepting money for political gain was true and it was in public good to publish the same. These facts are a matter of trial”, it said.

It was noted by the Bench that there was nothing on record to even prima facie establish that the imputation was true and its publication was for public good. It was not the petitioners’ case either that the imputation was truthful, and public good can only be established by leading evidence regarding “the nature of imputation made; the circumstances on which it came to be made and the status of the person who makes the imputation as also the status of the person against whom the imputation is allegedly made”, and other relevant facts. Thus, the Bench noted that the petitioners were not entitled to protection under First Exception to Section 499 IPC.

“In the absence of any material indicating the petitioners’ complicity in the case, there was no occasion to summon them to face trial; the order is, accordingly, groundless and unsustainable. As allegations in the complaint even if accepted in entirety do not constitute the offences under Section 499 to 502 IPC, summoning the petitioners to face trial will be an abuse of the process of Court, and a travesty of justice”, it held.

Reference was made to the judgment in N. Ram, Editor-in-chief and publisher of ‘The Hindu’ and others v. Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh, Haryana Prant, through its Prant Sangh Chalak and another (2012) where similar allegation of defamation against the editor of a national newspaper was dealt with and the Magistrate’s order summoning the petitioners/accused was set aside for the reason there was no intention to defame the complainant in publishing the news.

Thus, allowing the petitions, the Bench quashed the criminal complaint and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, including the summoning order qua the petitioners.

Cause Title: Rajesh Ramachandran and another v. State of Punjab and another (Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:041717)

Appearance:

Petitioners: Advocates Manu K. Bhandari, Rohit Kataria, Arjun Sawhni

Respondents:AAG Satjot Singh Chahal, Advocate P.S. Dhaliwal

Click here to read/download Order