The Allahabad High Court has intervened in a case about defamation, directing the then Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate of Ghaziabad to file a personal affidavit explaining the issuance of two contradictory orders on the same day in the same case.

The case revolves around a complaint lodged with the Economic Offences Wing, leading to the filing of an FIR under Sections 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Sections 7 and 13(1)(A) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In response, a defamation suit was filed by Ankur Garg against the applicant, alleging defamation due to the publication of the offences in various news articles.

The Applicant's counsel argued that her name was not explicitly mentioned in any of the news articles. Moreover, it was asserted that since Ankur Garg, the opposite party, was the applicant's brother-in-law, she fell within the 8th exception provided under Section 499 IPC, which exempts certain individuals from defamation accusations when making accusations in good faith to those in lawful authority.

The matter arose out of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 5, Ghaziabad which passed two conflicting orders in the defamation case. One order dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), while the second order summoned the applicant to face trial under Section 500 (Punishment of Defamation) of the IPC.

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Mayank Kumar Jain, while directing that no coercive action be taken against the applicant in the defamation suit, highlighted the discrepancy in the magistrate's orders.

"..no coercive action shall be taken against applicant in Complaint Case No. 5339 of 2023 Ankur Garg Vs. Smt. Parul Agrawal, under Section 500 of IPC, Police Station Kavi Nagar,District Ghaziabad, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad," the Court ordered.

The Bench noted that one order, uploaded on the CIS system, dismissed the complaint, while another order passed on the same day summoned the applicant for trial. "It appears that on 13.02.2024, two orders were passed in the said complaint by the learned Magistrate. One order which was uploaded on the CIS system is the order whereby the complaint filed by opposite party no.2 was dismissed under Section 203 of Cr.P.C., whilst the another order passed in the said complaint on 13.02.2024, a certified copy of which is annexed to the present application as Annexure No.2, is the order whereby the applicant has been summoned to face trial," it noted.

The Court directed Sandeep Singh, the then Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 5, Ghaziabad, to submit a personal affidavit explaining how such contradictory orders were issued simultaneously in the same case. "Sri Sandeep Singh, the then Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.5, Ghaziabad (it has been apprised to this court that the said Judicial Officer is presently posted at District Rampur), is directed to file his personal affidavit before this Court by the next date fixed explaining the aforesaid situation about existence of two contrary orders of the same date in the same complaint case under intimation to the concerned District Judge," the Bench directed.

Consequently, the Court ordered, "Registrar (Compliance) of this Court is directed to communicate this order to the concerned Judicial Officer as well as concerned District Judge forthwith, for compliance."

Cause Title: Parul Agarwal v. State of U.P. and Another

Appearance:-

Applicant: Advocates Gunjan Jadwani, Rahul Agarwal

Click here to read/download the Order


Justice Mayank Kumar JainAllahabad High Court

Sukriti Mishra