Criminal defamation case against Pinaki Misra quashed
The Delhi High Court has quashed criminal defamation proceedings against senior advocate and former Member of Parliament Pinaki Misra, in a case alleging that he had said certain objectionable words about a lawyer in an interview.
The High Court also quashed a trial court’s April 2019 order summoning Misra to face trial for defamation, saying permitting the proceedings to continue would not advance the cause of justice.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said the complainant had examined himself as the sole witness and had not provided any material to prima facie demonstrate that the alleged imputation had lowered his reputation in others’ estimation.
“There is no material on record, in the form of a statement of any other person or otherwise, to prima facie demonstrate that the alleged imputation had the effect of lowering the reputation of Respondent No 2 (complainant) in the estimation of others.” The allegation that the publication caused damage to his reputation, by itself, remains an assertion of the complainant and does not establish the statutory requirement contemplated by Explanation 4 to Section 499 (defamation) of IPC,” the court said in its order passed on August 25.
The High Court said permitting the criminal proceedings to continue would not advance the cause of justice and instead subject the petitioner (Misra) to the rigours of a criminal trial in the absence of sufficient foundational material.” Accordingly, this court deems it appropriate, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC, to quash the impugned summoning order and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
The petition is accordingly allowed,” it said.
It was alleged that the complainant advocate had filed a complaint with the Bar Council of Delhi in 2018 against Misra, alleging that the senior advocate’s appearance on behalf of power distribution companies before the National Green Tribunal amounted to professional misconduct.
After the dispute was reported in a newspaper, it was alleged that Misra gave an interview to another newspaper in which he purportedly used certain objectionable words against the complainant.
The complainant filed two defamation complaints alleging that Misra’s objectionable remarks have lowered his reputation in the eyes of the public and also affected his professional life.
The high court, in its order, noted that the allegation against Misra was founded upon the contents of an online news report.
It said Misra had specifically denied having given the interview and had communicated in March 2019 to the editor of the news establishment, denying that he gave the alleged interview and seeking the publication’s clarification.
The court said the alleged imputation was founded upon an online news report, which has not been supported by examination of the concerned reporter, author, editor or any other person associated with the news portal, particularly when the petitioner had specifically denied having made the alleged statement and had also sent a communication seeking clarification in this regard.
