Delhi High Court quashes criminal defamation case against Business Standard, Mitali Saran over article on RSS

The Delhi High Court today quashed the criminal defamation complaint and proceedings against newspaper, Business Standard and journalist Mitali Saran in relation to an article making allegedly defamatory insinuations against Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and its members. (Business Standard Private Limited & ors vs Lohitaksha Shukla) (Mitali Saran vs Lohitaksha Shukla).A single-judge Bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait concluded that the complainant, an advocate by profession, was not able to show as to how he was a “person aggrieved” in law.."I have no hesitation to hold that the complaint in question is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. It is ordered accordingly. Consequentially, proceedings emanating there-from are also quashed," the Court said. .Lohitaksha Shukla had filed the defamation complaint against newspaper Business Standard, author of the article, Mitali Saran and Editorial Director, AK Bhattacharya after the publication of an article titled as “The Long and Short of it” in March 2016. .As per the complainant, the article was not based on facts and contained some defamatory insinuations against RSS and its members. It was alleged that the article accused RSS members of being oppressive to Indians, mentally disturbed and disrespectful to Indian national symbols, practitioners of caste discrimination etc..The complainant averred that being a swayamsewak of RSS, his reputation was adversely affected..Subsequently, summons was issued by a Delhi Magisterial Court. .Challenging the proceedings, the petitioners i.e Saran and other accused inter alia argued that the complaint was an absolute abuse of process of law and was filed just to harass them..It was also contended that the complainant was not “person aggrieved” within the meaning of Section 199(1) CrPC and hence, was not competent to institute a private complaint..Even if the complaint was taken on the face value, the same did not disclose any offence within the ambit of Sections 499 and 500 IPC, it was added..On the other hand, the complainant submitted that the proceedings did not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and the petitions deserved to be dismissed..To arrive at its decision, the Court perused a series of judgments and the relevant legal provisions. .The Court noted that explanation 4 of Section 499 IPC mandated that an imputation could be said to harm a person’s reputation only if it directly or indirectly lowered the moral and intellectual character of that person or of his calling or the credit of that person in the estimation of others. .Opining that this requirement had not been satisfied in the present case, the Court observed, ."In the present case, the complainant has not led any evidence to establish how his reputation was harmed or his moral or intellectual character was lowered as a result of the said article. However, he has claimed that he has been asked by his friends to leave RSS as a result of this article but he has not brought anyone in the witness box in support of this assertion and thereby, has failed to prove that article brought any kind of defamation to him or that it has lowered the reputation of RSS in the eyes of his friends or RSS. So, trial court has erred in not applying its mind on this aspect.".The Court added that while the complainant claimed to be swayamsewak of RSS and its member, he did not bring any witness or material on record to prove the same. .The Court further recorded that even in terms of Section 199 (1) CrPC, a Magistrate could take cognizance of the offence only upon receiving a complaint by a person who is aggrieved. ."The purpose and intent of this provision is to limit the power of Magistrate to take cognizance of offences pertaining to defamation in order to prevent and discourage the filing of frivolous complaints.", the Court said. .The Court, therefore, concluded that the complaint suffers from vices of illegality or infirmity.."In the present case, the complainant has not been able to show as to how he is the “person aggrieved” within the definition of Section 199(1) Cr.P.C. and thus, the contents of the complaint suffers from vices of illegality or infirmity. Even complainant is not a part of “identifiable class” or definite “association or collection of persons” as enumerated in Explanation (2) to Section 499 of IPC.".Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed and all proceedings emanating from it were also quashed..Advocates NB Joshi, Neeraj K Gupta, Ranjeet Kumar Singh appared for Business Standard. .Advocate Mukesh Sharma appeared for the complainant. .Mitali Saran was represented by Advocates Trideep Pais, Sanya Kumar..[Read Order]