Delhi HC quashes summons issued to Smriti Irani in Defamation Case by Sanjay Nirupam

Holding that continuance of a criminal prosecution which is instituted as a “counter-blast” is an abuse of the process of law, the Delhi High Court has quashed the summons issued to Union Minister Smriti Irani. The summons were issued to Irani in a criminal defamation case by Congress Leader Sanjay Nirupam..A Single judge Bench comprising Justice RK Gauba, however, dismissed Nirupam’s challenge to the summons issued to him in the defamation case initiated by Irani..Interestingly, in the case, the Court deemed it appropriate to not reveal the identity of the two leaders “in their interest”, and referred to Irani as ‘PQR’ and Nirupam as ‘XYZ’..The Court justified such reference to the two leaders by stating,.“The petitioner and the second respondent have been in public life for quite long, engaged in active politics, they being associated with political parties that generally have been seen to be opposed to each other. In their interest, their names are being withheld from mention, including in the cause-title. In the wake of results of the their names are being withheld from mention, including in the cause-title.“.As a matter of general practice, the identity of the litigant is hidden in cases of sexual abuse or matrimonial disputes..The criminal litigation between the two politicians arose out of a verbal duel between them in the studio of a News Channel which was airing a live programme..During the show, when Nirupam was speaking on certain issues concerning the plight of farmers, Irani, in response, questioned his credentials by raising the issue of his past association with a different political outfit. A verbal spat broke out between the two and Nirupam uttered words to the effect that Irani was trying to show herself as an analyst even though she had spent an insignificant period (“chaar din”) in politics..“He followed this by using words loosely translated to the effect that the petitioner had been dancing around on television till recent times and was projecting herself as a political leader (“Arrey, Kal tak television par thumke laga rahi thee, aaj neta ban gayee”), repeating it several times, the anchor trying to stop this diatribe. The second respondent then raised the issue of the “values” followed by the petitioner (“aapke sanskar bahut achche hain, aapke sanskar kya hain”). The petitioner, seemingly hurt, responded by telling the second respondent that he was indulging in frivolous conduct (“chhichhora harqat”) similar to the one reflected by gunda elements who indulge in eve-teasing or molestation on the streets of Delhi, one which eventually turn them into rapists.”, the order narrates the event..Nirupam then asked Irani to shut up, questioning her “character” and brought up the issue of her personal life, referring to her marriage to the former husband of her close friend..Thereafter, Irani instituted a criminal defamation case against Nirupam who later filed a cross defamation case. Subsequently, summons was issued in the two cases to the respective accused-leaders..Irani and Nirupam moved the High Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the summons issued to them in the cross defamation cases..Allowing Irani’s plea, Court stated that the chronology of events as well as material on record clearly indicated that the case against her was an aftermath, and allowing it to proceed would be an abuse of the process of law..“Having regard to the chronology of events, it is clear that the criminal complaint leading to the summoning order against the petitioner was instituted by the second respondent in the counter-blast to the complaint of the former, there being no explanation offered for the delay. The continuance of such criminal prosecution on the basis of available material would be an abuse of the process of law.”, the Court has observed..It rejected Nirupam’s plea on the ground that “no case is made out for intervention in exercise of the special jurisdiction of Section 482 Cr. PC at this stage“. The Court also rejected Nirupam’s contention that although the complaint had not invoked Section 509 IPC, the Magistrate took cognizance of the Section, and hence was liable to be set aside..The Court observed that the Magistrate had the power and jurisdiction to take cognizance of all such offences as are shown to have been committed by the evidence which was presented in the pre-summoning inquiry..It thus decreed,.“The petition is dismissed.“.Read the order in Smriti Irani’s plea:.Read the order in Sanjay Nirupam’s plea: