Gujarat HC Dismisses Quashing Petition Where Core Defamation Evidence Was Never Placed on Record

The Gujarat High Court refused to revive a Section 500 IPC complaint after finding the original application said to be defamatory was never produced before any court, and Exception 8 to Section 499 IPC independently shielded the respondent.

The High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad has dismissed a Special Criminal Application seeking to quash two concurrent orders that had thrown out a defamation complaint under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. Justice J. L. Odedra, sitting singly, found that the petitioner had failed at every tier to produce the very document he claimed was defamatory, and that even if it had been produced, the filing of an application before police would attract Exception 8 to Section 499 IPC. The petition had asked the Court to revive Enquiry No. 02 of 2022 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dediyapada, after the complaint was dismissed under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that dismissal was confirmed in revision by the District Sessions Judge, Narmada at Rajpipla.

The Dispute Behind the Complaint

The petitioner, Vijaybhai Jeysingbhai Vasava, alleged that respondent No. 2, Rajeshbhai Ratilal Vasava, had filed an application before the police in respect of land at Compartment No. 396, Plot No. 2, measuring 00 Hectares and 60 Are, situated in District Narmada, Taluka Dediyapada, Village Bandishervan. The petitioner described the land as forest land.

The substance of that application, as characterised by the petitioner, was that standing crops on the land had been grazed by cattle at the instance of the petitioner and his associates. The petitioner contended that the application itself was false. He further alleged that a person named Shri Vasava Champak had posted the application along with certain photographs on his Facebook page, all at the direction of respondent No. 2, causing the petitioner to be publicly defamed.

The petitioner also relied on newspaper cuttings from the Gujarat Samachar (Vadodara Edition) and Sandesh (Bharuch-Narmada Edition), contending that similar defamatory reporting had been published in those papers at respondent No. 2's behest, and that the reporting was timed to favour a particular political party in elections.

On these grounds, the petitioner approached the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Dediyapada seeking registration of an offence under Section 500 IPC against respondent No. 2. The matter was registered as Enquiry No. 02 of 2022.

Both Lower Courts Found the Complaint Legally Inadequate

After recording the complainant's verification, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 203 CrPC. The Magistrate's reasoning rested on three findings. First, the original application allegedly filed by respondent No. 2 before the police had not been produced on record by the petitioner. Second, whether that application was true or false was a matter of investigation, not one to be presumed at the threshold. Third, and separately, the newspaper cuttings did not mention the petitioner's name at all.

The Magistrate also recorded that Regular Civil Suit No. 67 of 2018 was pending before a competent court in respect of the same land, filed by respondent No. 2 and others.

The petitioner then filed Criminal Revision No. 34 of 2022 before the District Sessions Judge, Narmada at Rajpipla. The revisional court declined to interfere. It reiterated that the original application was absent from the record, making it impossible to assess whether it was true or false. It found that whether the newspaper items were published at the instance of respondent No. 2 had not been prima facie established. It also noted the pendency of Civil Suit No. 67 of 2018. The revisional court concluded that the ingredients of Section 500 IPC were not satisfied and upheld the Magistrate's order.

Arguments Before the High Court

Before Justice Odedra, Ms. Tasnim A. Zabuawala, appearing for the petitioner, pressed the argument that there was no way Shri Vasava Champak could have obtained the application filed by respondent No. 2 independently, implying respondent No. 2's involvement in its Facebook circulation. She submitted that the manner in which the allegations regarding crop-grazing were spread on social media was derogatory to the petitioner. She further contended that the newspaper coverage showed a coordinated campaign to defame the petitioner ahead of elections.

Mr. Dhawan Jayswal, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, opposed the petition, submitting that no case had been made out on the record.

Mr. Apurva R. Kapadia, appearing for respondent No. 2, supported the impugned orders and raised the legal shield of Exception 8 to Section 499 IPC. He submitted that an accusation preferred in good faith before a person having lawful authority over the subject matter does not amount to defamation. Filing an application before the police, he argued, falls squarely within that exception. He further submitted that the upload of the application on Facebook was not to the knowledge of respondent No. 2, and that the newspaper items were similarly not at his instance. He also pointed to the pending civil proceedings as evidence that respondent No. 2 had a legitimate dispute over the land.

The High Court's Reasoning

Justice Odedra identified three independent deficiencies that together made the petition untenable.

The first went to the very foundation of the complaint. The original application filed by respondent No. 2 before the police — the document the petitioner called defamatory — had never been placed on record, not before the Magistrate and not before the revisional court. Without that document, the court observed, “the very edifice, on which the petitioner claims that respondent No.2 has defamed, is missing.” Two courts had already returned findings to the same effect, and the petitioner had not remedied the lacuna even at the High Court stage.

The second deficiency concerned the Facebook posts. Shri Vasava Champak, who ran the Facebook page on which the application and photographs were circulated, had not been impleaded as a party before the Magisterial Court. The petitioner attributed the posts to respondent No. 2, but that attribution had to rest on something more than inference, especially when the person actually running the account was not even a party to the proceedings.

The third deficiency addressed the newspaper reports. The court noted that the name of the person alleged to be behind the grazing of the crops was not mentioned in those news items at all. Without the petitioner being identified in the reports, the basis for a defamation claim founded on newspaper coverage was absent.

The court then addressed the legal position independently. Even setting aside these evidentiary shortcomings, Justice Odedra held that if respondent No. 2 had filed an application before the police, that act would fall within Exception 8 to Section 499 IPC. The exception protects an accusation made in good faith to a person having lawful authority over the subject matter of the accusation. Merely filing a complaint or an application before the police, the court held, cannot give rise to a prosecution for defamation under Section 500 IPC.

Outcome

Justice Odedra found no merit in the Special Criminal Application and dismissed it. The court held that no direction could be given to revive Enquiry No. 02 of 2022 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dediyapada. The rule was discharged. The orders of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dediyapada, and the District Sessions Judge, Narmada at Rajpipla in Criminal Revision No. 34 of 2022 dated 6 February 2023, were left undisturbed.