The Delhi High Court has held that for defamation to be established, it must be shown that imputations were made with the intention of harming reputation. The High Court also held that mere filing of complaints, even if later found to be false, does not automatically constitute defamation.

The petition before the High Court was filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, on behalf of the Petitioner against the Order of the Special Judge (PC Act) upholding the Order discharging the respondents for the offence under Section 187, 211, 406, 500, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. However, the second respondent was summoned for the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC.

The Single Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held, “For defamation to be established, it must be shown that imputations were made with the intention of harming reputation or with knowledge or reason to believe that such imputations would harm reputation. Mere filing of Complaints, even if later found to be false, does not automatically constitute defamation, particularly when such Complaints are made to authorities in the due course of law.”

Advocate Aishwarya Rao represented the Petitioner, while APP Utkarsh represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The Petitioner was one of the Directors of M/s Crescore Wealth Management (P) Ltd. and M/s Unor Exim Pvt. Ltd. The second Respondent joined the Company in 2013 as Executive Assistant Administrative and Business. She left the job on after settling her full and final Account with the Company. The third Respondent joined the Company as Assistant Manager (Operation). As per her duties, she was handed over confidential data of the Company. She tendered her resignation. It came to the knowledge of the Petitioner, being the Director of the Company that she had taken away important data of clients, important files, documents, which had been entrusted / handed over to her during the course of her employment with the Company.

A Complaint was lodged against the third Respondent. The third Respondent was served with legal Notice by the Petitioner, to return the data of clients, important-files, documents, etc. She was asked to deposit a sum of Rs 50,000 for violating the terms and conditions of her employment, despite which she did not comply with the said legal Notice. It was alleged that after receiving Legal Notice, she joined hands with other respondents and lodged false and frivolous Complaints against the Petitioner. Petitioner filed a Complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) against the Respondents. The Petitioner asserted that these Respondents filed a false Complaint and got four FIRs registered against him.

The Petitioner filed an Application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which was declined by the Trial Court. However, the said Application was treated as a Complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The MM noted that no offence was made out and there was no entrustment of data. Therefore, the Complaint was dismissed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the aforesaid dismissal, Petitioner filed a Criminal Revision. Aggrieved by the impugned Order of the ASJ dismissing the Complaint against all the Respondents for all the offences (except the second Respondent who had been summoned under Section 506 IPC), the Petitioner approached the High Court.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, explained that Section 182 IPC pertains to giving false information to a public servant, with an intent to cause him to use his lawful power to the injury of another person. Section 211 IPC deals with instituting criminal proceedings falsely with intent to injure. These allegations, as per the Bench, were essentially in the context of the aforementioned FIRs, but there was nothing to conclude that they were intended to cause injury to the Complainant or were motivated to cause injury. “Unless there is any finding to this affect by the Police or the Court, no offence under these Sections, is made out”, it added.

The Bench also noted that Section 406 IPC requires proof of entrustment of property, dishonest misappropriation or conversion of such property, and violation of a legal direction. On a perusal of the facts, the Bench found that the ASJ examined the pre-summoning evidence and concluded that there was insufficient material to establish prima facie “entrustment” in the manner contemplated under Section 405/406 IPC. “It was rightly noted that the data or the documents that were in possession of the Respondents, were during the course of their employment and remained in their possession only in connection with their official duties, particularly when there is no clear evidence of dishonest intention or conversion for personal gain”, it mentioned.

Coming to the alleged offence under Section 500 of the IPC, the Bench held that the appreciation of evidence by the MM as well as the ASJ on this count revealed no perversity warranting interference and thus, no offence under Section 500 IPC was made out.

The Bench noted that the ASJ held that there was sufficient prima facie material to show that the second Respondent had threatened the Petitioner at his office, in the presence of office staff. The evidence of the witnesses established a prima facie case that she threatened to make false complaints of molestation and sexual harassment, if the Petitioner pursued legal action against another Responden. The Bench affirmed, “Thus, the learned ASJ has rightly summoned only Respondent No. 2 for offence under Section 506 IPC.”

Finding that no prima facie case for summoning of the Respondents for the offences under Section 182,211,406,500,506,34,120B IPC had been made out against any of the Respondents except the second Respondent, the Bench dismissed the Petition.

Cause Title: Rajan Sareen v. State Of NCT Of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:11361)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Aishwarya Rao, Deepak Rathore, Mansi Rao, Kaveri

Respondent: APP Utkarsh

Click here to read/download Order


Delhi High CourtJustice Neena Bansal Krishna

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.