Knowledge Or Reason To Believe That Imputation Would Harm Reputation Sufficient To Attract Defamation: J&K And Ladakh High Court

The Court was hearing a petition challenging a criminal complaint filed for defamation under Section 500 of the Ranbir Penal Code and an order of the Judicial Magistrate by which process had been issued against the petitioners in relation to a news item published in a newspaper.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar: “The contention of the petitioners that they had no intention to cause harm to reputation of the respondent while publishing the said news item cannot be accepted because Section 499 of RPC brings within its purview not only a case where the person making or publishing any imputation intends to harm him but it also brings within its purview a case where a person has knowledge or has reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of the person against whom imputation is made”.

Background

The respondent filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, alleging that he was a businessman operating a computer repair shop in Ramgarh, Samba district. The complaint alleged that a newspaper carried a news item describing him as an overground worker of militants and claiming that he had been taken into custody in connection with militant activities.

The news report further suggested that the respondent had links with militant organisations and had assisted terrorists involved in attacks on security installations. According to the complainant, the publication of these allegations lowered his reputation among relatives, acquaintances and the public at large.

After recording the statements of the complainant and a witness, the Magistrate took cognisance of the offence under Section 500 RPC and issued process against the petitioners.

The petitioners approached the High Court seeking the quashing of the complaint and the order issuing process. They contended that the news item had been published on the basis of information already available in the public domain and that there was no intention to harm the reputation of the complainant.

Court’s Observation

The Court examined the scope of interference by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It reiterated that proceedings can be quashed only where the allegations in the complaint and the supporting material do not disclose the commission of any offence.

Referring to the provisions of Section 499 RPC defining defamation, the Court noted that the offence is attracted when a person makes or publishes an imputation concerning another person, intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of that person.

The Court observed that branding a person as an overground worker of militants or alleging links with militant organisations directly lowers the reputation of such a person in the eyes of society.

Rejecting the contention that the absence of intention to harm reputation would negate the offence, the Court held that Section 499 RPC covers not only cases where there is intention to harm reputation but also those where the accused had knowledge or reason to believe that the imputation would harm the reputation of the complainant. In the circumstances of the present case, the Court observed that the nature of the news item itself prima facie indicated that the publishers had knowledge that such publication would harm the reputation of the complainant.

The Court also rejected the argument that the news report was based on information already available in the public domain. It noted that the news item itself did not indicate that it was based on any official briefing by security or investigating agencies, nor had the petitioners produced any material showing that the contents were already publicly reported.

The Court further observed that the question whether the imputations contained in the news report were true or whether they were based on information from any State agency would require examination during trial and could not be determined in proceedings seeking quashing of the complaint.

While examining the liability of the persons associated with the newspaper, the Court referred to the provisions of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867. The Court noted that a statutory presumption arises against the person whose name is printed as the editor of the newspaper, as the editor is presumed to control the selection of the content published.

In the present case, the declaration of the newspaper showed that petitioner No.2 was the editor of the Jammu edition of the newspaper. Consequently, the presumption under Section 7 of the Act arose against him, and he could not avoid responsibility for the publication of the news item.

However, the Court found that petitioner No.1 was merely the owner of the newspaper and that the complaint did not contain any specific allegation indicating his role in selecting or publishing the impugned news item.

Conclusion

In view of the above findings, the High Court partly allowed the petition and quashed the criminal complaint and the proceedings arising therefrom insofar as they related to the owner of the newspaper.

However, the Court declined to interfere with the proceedings against the editor, holding that the complaint disclosed a prima facie case of defamation requiring adjudication during trial.

Cause Title: Sanjay Gupta & Anr. v. Prem Kumar

Appearances

Petitioners: Atul Raina, Advocate

Respondent: Meenakshi S. Salathia, Advocate

Click here to read/download Judgment