Sanchayita Lahkar

The Punjab and Haryana High Court  Single Bench of Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya quashed criminal complaint proceedings initiated against four media personnel accused of defamation under Sections 500, 501, and 502 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court held that in the absence of “any material indicating the petitioners’ complicity in the case, there was no occasion to summon them to face trial” and concluded that “summoning the petitioners to face trial will be an abuse of the process of Court, and a travesty of justice.”

The petitioners—two Editors and two Correspondents—had sought quashing of the summoning order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mansa, based on their publication of statements made during a political press conference. The bench noted that the allegations, even if accepted in entirety, did not constitute offences under the relevant sections of the IPC.

Also Read: "Supreme Court Criticises 'Casual and Cursory' Quashing of Cheating Case, Orders Trial Under Section 420 IPC: 'Least Expected Was Reasoned Assessment'"

The petitioners included Rajesh Ramachandran, Editor of ‘The Tribune’ (English), and Parvesh Sharma, its Principal Correspondent; as well as Dr. Swaraj Bir Singh, Editor of ‘The Punjabi Tribune’, and Gurdeep Singh Lali, a contributor from Sangrur. They were summoned by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mansa, through an order dated 14.12.2020, in connection with criminal complaint no.177/2019 under Sections 500 and 120-B IPC read with Sections 66 and 67 of the Information Technology Act.

The complaint arose out of a news report published on April 28, 2019, concerning a press conference held by Member of Parliament and then AAP Punjab Convener Bhagwant Singh Mann. During the press briefing, Mann alleged that “Congress leaders offered Rs 10 crore and a plum post in the Congress to their party MLA” and that “MLA Nazar Singh Manshahia has also got the same amount and... will also be appointed as chairman of the Punjab Pollution Control Board.”

This statement was published in multiple newspapers, including ‘The Tribune’, ‘The Punjabi Tribune’, ‘Jag Bani’, and ‘Hindustan Times’, attributing the allegation directly to Bhagwant Mann. The complainant, Nazar Singh Manshahia, a then MLA from Mansa, filed a criminal complaint against nine individuals, including the MP and the media personnel responsible for disseminating the statements.

The complaint alleged that the petitioners published “false allegations” and that the statement was made “just to harass, humiliate, torture, defame and degrade the complainant in the eyes of public.” The complainant claimed his “unblemished image” was tarnished as the news item became viral on social media, thereby reaching a wide audience.

Before the Magistrate, the complainant reiterated his allegations and submitted newspaper publications dated April 28, 2019, as well as a legal notice addressed to Bhagwant Mann. A police inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. concluded that the complainant’s reputation was affected due to the media coverage, though the offence remained non-cognizable.

Relying on this material, the CJM summoned the petitioners to face trial for offences under Sections 500, 501, and 502 IPC. The Court noted that the petitioners either authored the report or acted as Editors responsible for its publication, and held that they “despite having the knowledge or reason to believe that such an imputation will harm the reputation of the complainant, communicated it further for Printing and Publishing.”

Justice Dahiya carefully analysed the ingredients of the offences under Sections 499 to 502 IPC and the scope of the First Exception to Section 499 IPC, which protects truthful imputations made for the public good. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Chaman Lal v. State of Punjab, the Court reiterated that to invoke the First Exception, the accused must prove both the truth of the imputation and that its publication served the public good.

The judgment recorded, “Merely because the petitioners accurately reported the allegations in the newspapers, would not bring them within the exception unless it was established that the imputation... was true and it was in public good to publish the same.” The Court found that there was “nothing on record to even prima facie establish” these elements and clarified that such facts “are a matter of trial.”

However, the Court further examined whether the essential element of mens rea under Section 499 IPC was satisfied. Quoting from the Supreme Court’s decision in Jeffrey J. Diermeier and another v. State of West Bengal and another, the Court reiterated that it is sufficient to show “that the accused intended or knew or had reason to believe that the imputation made by him would harm the reputation of the complainant.”

On this point, the Court found, “there is no such allegation in the entire complaint against the petitioners” and that “no material has been brought on record to even prima facie indicate that the petitioners had reported or published the imputation... to harm his reputation.”

Justice Dahiya further recorded that the CJM’s inference that the petitioners had knowledge of potential harm lacked evidentiary support: “The reason cited by the CJM... is without any evidence at all, and that is why none finds reference in support thereof.”

Also Read: AP High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in Ganja Case: Says “Custodial Interrogation Is Essential” and Confession Implicating Co-Accused Is Admissible Under Section 30

Holding that the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to abuse of the process of law, the Court concluded that the order summoning them to face trial was unsustainable. The judgment stated: “As allegations in the complaint even if accepted in entirety do not constitute the offences under Section 499 to 502 IPC, summoning the petitioners to face trial will be an abuse of the process of Court, and a travesty of justice.”

Accordingly, the Court allowed the petitions and passed the following operative order:

“Criminal complaint no.177/2019, dated 30.07.2019, titled Nazar Singh Manshahia v. Bhagwant Mann and others, under Sections 500 and 120-B of IPC read with Sections 66 and 67 of the Information Technology Act, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, including the summoning order, dated 14.12.2020, are hereby quashed qua the petitioners. Bail/surety bonds, if any, furnished by them shall stand discharged.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Manu K. Bhandari, Advocate, Mr. Rohit Kataria, Advocate, and Mr. Arjun Sawhni, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Satjot Singh Chahal, AAG, Punjab, Mr. P.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate

Case Title: Rajesh Ramachandran and another v. State of Punjab and another; Dr. Swaraj Bir Singh and another v. State of Punjab and another

Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:041717

Case Number: CRM-M-3815-2021 (O&M) and CRM-M-3907-2021 (O&M)

Bench: Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya

[Read/Download order]