No Prima Facie Material To Demonstrate Alleged Imputation: Delhi High Court Quashes Defamation Case Against Senior Advocate Pinaki Misra
|It was observed that the complainant failed to provide independent witnesses to prove that his reputation was lowered in the eyes of others.
The Delhi High Court has quashed criminal defamation proceedings against Senior Advocate Pinaki Misra, citing a lack of foundational evidence under Section 499 of the IPC.
The court noted that the allegations relied on an unverified online article from Daily Hunt News without testimony from the reporter or editor, nor the required certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.
Exercising its power under Section 482 of the CrPC, the High Court set aside the Magistrate's summoning order, concluding that continuing the trial would not serve the ends of justice.
The Bench of Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma held, "...this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice, particularly when the respondent no. 2, having examined himself as the sole witness, has not placed any material to prima facie demonstrate that the alleged imputation had lowered his reputation in the estimation of others as contemplated under Explanation 4 to Section 499 of IPC and, further, the alleged imputation is founded upon an online news report which has not been supported by examination of the concerned reporter, author, editor or any other person associated with the news portal, particularly when the petitioner had specifically denied having made the alleged statement and had also addressed a communication seeking clarification in this regard, and in these peculiar facts and circumstances."
Senior Advocate Rebecca John appeared for Misra, while APP Manoj Pant appeared for the State
Brief Facts of the Case
A petition was filed seeking to set aside the summoning order passed by the Magistrate whereby the Petitioner was summoned to face trial for the offences under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Complainant/Respondent had filed a complaint before the Bar Council of Delhi against Misra, alleging that his appearance on behalf of power distribution companies before the National Green Tribunal amounted to professional misconduct.
In August 2018, an article was published in the Economic Times regarding the said complaint. In his response, the petitioner herein had denied the allegations as false and baseless and referred to the respondent as a “crook”.
Thereafter, the Respondent instituted one Complaint before the Delhi Court seeking initiation of defamation proceedings. Subsequently, the Respondent filed another complaint again seeking initiation of proceedings under Section 500 of the IPC in respect of the petitioner. In the said complaint, it was alleged that the petitioner had made defamatory remarks against him in an interview to Daily Hunt News.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The Petitioner submitted that the second complaint arose out of the same dispute which formed the subject matter of the earlier complaint and is based upon a downloaded copy of an online news article published by Daily Hunt News.
It was submitted that the petitioner had never given any statement to the said news portal and that the article, being an online report, was neither proved through its reporter nor accompanied by the requisite certification under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Observations of the Court
The Court observed that Respondent No. 2 examined himself as the sole witness in the pre-summoning evidence. There was no material on record, in the form of a statement of any other person or otherwise, to prima facie demonstrate that the alleged imputation had the effect of lowering the reputation of Respondent No. 2 in the estimation of others.
"The allegation that the publication caused damage to his reputation, by itself, remains an assertion of the complainant and does not establish the statutory requirement contemplated by Explanation 4 to Section 499 IPC", the Court observed.
The Court noted that the material placed before the Magistrate does not disclose examination of the concerned reporter or author of the publication, or any person associated with the concerned newspaper/news portal, who could prima facie establish that the alleged words were in fact uttered by the petitioner.
Respondent No. 2 had subsequently arrayed the editor/owner of the said news portal as an accused in the complaint. Thus, apart from the publication itself, there was no independent material before the learned ACMM connecting the alleged statement with the petitioner, it said.
The Court held, "Therefore, this Court is of the view that permitting the criminal proceedings to continue would not advance the cause of justice and would instead subject the petitioner to the rigours of a criminal trial in the absence of sufficient foundational material. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the impugned summoning order and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom."
Accordingly, the Petition was disposed of.
Cause Title: Pinaki Misra v. State and Anr. [Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:7169]
Appearances:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Rebecca M John, Advocates Anushka Baruah, Pravir Singh and Nilanjan Dey
Respondent/State: APP Manoj Pant