Court Is Barred From Taking Cognizance Of Offence Of Defamation On A Police Report: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court held that the court is barred from taking cognizance of the offence of defamation on a police report, which can only be taken on a complaint filed by the aggrieved party.

The Court held thus in an application filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) seeking ad-interim stay of the defamation proceedings before the Rouse Avenue Court, New Delhi.

A Single Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed, “This Court also note that the learned ASJ, after considering the law on point, had observed that the purpose of Section 210 of Cr.P.C. was to avoid taking cognizance of the same offence again, to avoid separate trial for the same offence. However, in the present case, the complaint case has been filed for offence of defamation and the FIR has been registered for offences of cheating and forgery, and the question of taking cognizance of the same offence would not arise, besides the fact that Court is also barred from taking cognizance of the offence of defamation on a police report, which can only be taken on a complaint filed by the aggrieved party.”

The Bench took note of the fact that the FIR has not been registered under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) i.e., for the offence of defamation, in relation to which the complainant had preferred to file the complaint.

Senior Advocate N. Hariharan represented the petitioner while APP Manoj Pant represented the respondent.

In this case, the summons were issued against the accused persons namely Manjinder Singh Sirsa, Harmeet Singh Kalka and Jagdeep Singh Kahlon by the court and the accused persons had preferred a Criminal Revision against the said order, and the same stood dismissed, which was challenged in the High Court. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the impugned order led to serious miscarriage of justice and was an abuse of the process of Court, as the Judge passed the order contrary to the provisions of law.

The High Court in the above context said, “This Court notes that the learned ASJ, after examining the provision of Section 210 of Cr.P.C. and the judicial precedents on it, has rightly observed that the FIR No. 08/2023, registered at P.S. Economic Offences Wing, Delhi, in relation to preparation of forged letter dated 04.04.2016 was registered on the basis of complaint filed by the respondent no. 2/complainant herein, pursuant to an order passed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The said FIR stands registered under Sections 420/468/471/120B of IPC. It is important to note that the FIR has not been registered under Sections 499/500 of IPC i.e. for the offence of defamation, in relation to which the complainant had preferred to file the present complaint.”

The Court noted that the complaint was not merely based on the imputations made against the complainant by the accused persons premised on a letter, alleged as a forged letter by the complainant, but it also refers to several other incidents and allegations against the accused persons, which have been detailed out in the complaint.

Furthermore, it said, “This Court has perused para 16 of the complaint, whereby the complainant has listed out several statements made by the accused persons, which were published in print and electronic media, between the period 2020 to 2023, where the complainant has been addressed as golak chor, kalankit pradhan, etc. … this Court finds that the learned ASJ has examined in detail, the issue of registration of FIR in relation to letter dated 04.04.2016 and simultaneous proceedings in the present complaint case for commission of offence of defamation, and at this stage, this Court does not find any reasons to stay the proceedings in the present complaint case.”

The Court, therefore, concluded that in the main petition, where the petitioner has sought setting aside of impugned order and order of summoning, notice has already been issued, however, it is not inclined to stay the proceedings before the Trial Court.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the application.

Cause Title- Manjinder Singh Sirsa v. State NCT of Delhi and Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:555)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Jasprit Singh Rai, Yoginder Handoo, and Ashwin Kataria.

Respondents: Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur, Advocates Naginder Benipal, Sumit Misra, and Mayank Sharma.

Click here to read/download the Judgment