Delhi HC quashes defamation case against Pinaki Misra over lack of proof

Delhi High Court quashed a criminal defamation case against senior advocate Pinaki Misra. The court held there was no material to show alleged remarks like 'crook' lowered the complainant's reputation in the eyes of others as required by law.

The Delhi High Court has quashed criminal defamation proceedings against senior advocate and former MP Pinaki Misra, holding that there was not enough material to prima facie show that the alleged remarks had lowered the complainant's reputation in the eyes of others.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, in a judgment pronounced on August 25, set aside the summoning order issued against Misra and quashed the criminal proceedings arising from the complaint.

Background of the Case

The case arose from a complaint filed by Siddhartha Singh, who alleged that Misra had made defamatory remarks against him in an interview published online. The alleged remarks included the words "crook" and "blackmailer". Singh claimed that the remarks damaged his reputation and affected his professional life.

The trial court had summoned Misra under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), finding sufficient grounds to proceed with the defamation case.

Defence Arguments

Misra challenged the summoning order before the High Court and denied giving the alleged interview. His counsel argued that Singh had examined only himself during the pre-summoning proceedings and had not produced any person who could show that the alleged remarks had actually lowered his reputation in the eyes of others.

The defence also pointed out that the reporter, author, editor or any other person connected with the online publication had not been examined to establish that Misra had actually made the alleged statements.

High Court's Rationale for Quashing Proceedings

The High Court took note of these submissions while examining whether there was sufficient material to continue the criminal case.

The High Court referred to Explanation 4 to Section 499 IPC, which requires that an alleged imputation must lower the moral or intellectual character, professional character or credit of a person in the estimation of others for it to amount to defamation.

Justice Sharma observed that Singh's own assertion that his reputation had been damaged was not, by itself, sufficient to establish this legal requirement. The court noted that there was no statement of any other person or other material on record to prima facie demonstrate that Singh's reputation had been lowered in the estimation of others.

The court also noted that Misra had specifically denied giving the alleged interview. He had subsequently written to the editor of another newspaper on March 22, 2019, denying that he had given the alleged interview and seeking publication of a clarification. Despite this, there was no independent material before the trial court connecting the alleged statements in the online report with Misra.

Final Verdict and Justification

Justice Sharma made it clear that at the stage of taking cognizance or issuing summons, a court is not required to conduct a detailed trial or undertake a meticulous appreciation of evidence. However, the basic ingredients of the alleged offence must still be prima facie disclosed from the material placed before the court.

In the present case, the High Court found that the necessary foundational material was missing. The complainant had not produced evidence to show that the alleged remarks had lowered his reputation in the estimation of others, while the alleged interview itself had not been independently proved through the concerned reporter, author, editor or another person associated with the publication.

The High Court therefore held that allowing the criminal proceedings to continue would not serve the ends of justice and would instead subject Misra to the rigours of a criminal trial without sufficient foundational material. Exercising its powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, the court quashed the April 20, 2019 summoning order and all consequential proceedings. The petition filed by Pinaki Misra was accordingly allowed. (ANI)

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianetnews Editorial staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)