The Delhi HC in, MITALI SARAN Vs LOHITAKSHA SHUKLA & ORS, quashed the defamation case against Business Standard and Mitali Saran over an article that was written in 2016 on Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh(RSS). It was held by the court that the complainant was not the aggrieved party and hence by virtue of Section 199(1) Cr.P.C can’t approach the court.
Facts
One, Lohitaksha Shukla alleged that an article published in Business Standard in 2016 by Mitali Saran was not based on facts and contained some defamatory insinuations against RSS. A Complaint was filed in the trial court. Business Standard and Mitali Saran both approached the High Court seeking quashing of the complainant and the summoning order passed by the trial court.
Contentions of Petitioners
It was submitted by the petitioners that the complainant was not the aggrieved person and hence by the virtue of Section 199(1) Cr.P.C can not approach the court. Similar contention was raised by Mitali Saran and she further argued that her literary style involves using satire, irony and humour to comment on the latest political and social developments and the allegations made by the complainant does not amount to defamation.
Contention of Respondent
It was stated by the complainant/respondent that the summoning order by the trial court suffers from no illegality or infirmity and these petitions deserve to be dismissed. Respondent relied on a catena of judgements.
Court’s Order
The Court relied on Explanation 4 of Section 499 IPC and stated that 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. Further, the respondent failed to prove that he was a member of RSS and hence the court stated that the application of Tek Chand Gupta and G. Narsihman judgement would not apply. The court stated that the trial court has erred in its order as the complainant was not the one aggrieved. The court finally after a perusal of the evidence made reliance on Mehmood Ul Rehman judgement and stated that the complaint in question was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed.
Case Details
CRL.M.C. 621/2017 & Crl.M.As.2665/2017 & 7817/2019
Counsel for Petitioner- Mr. N.B.Joshi, Mr. Neeraj K. Gupta & Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Singh, Advocates, and Mr. Trideep Pais, Advocate with Ms.Sanya Kumar, Advocates
Counsel for Respondent- Mr. Mukesh Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1
Coram- J. Suresh Kumar Kait
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com\
Picture Source :