Punjab And Haryana HC Refuses To Quash Defamation Case Against Aaj Tak | Court Says Prima Facie Offence Made Out And Police Cannot Shy Away | Allegations Linked Businessman To BJP Leader’s Murder
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Single Bench of Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya, has dismissed a petition challenging the initiation of proceedings in a matter arising out of allegations of defamation. The Court held that the procedure adopted by the Magistrate in directing registration of a non-cognizable report and subsequent investigation under Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was lawful and valid. The judgment clarified that no exception could be taken to the process followed in the registration of the report, its investigation, and the subsequent filing of the chargesheet.
The Court further noted that the Magistrate was well within his jurisdiction to issue directions under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. to investigate a non-cognizable offence. It specifically recorded that the matter did not involve registration of an FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., but was based solely on the complaint disclosing a non-cognizable offence. Consequently, the investigation carried out pursuant to the Magistrate’s order and the resultant chargesheet were held to be in accordance with law. In view of this, the Court dismissed the petition in its entirety, bringing an end to the challenge raised against the criminal proceedings.
The matter before the Punjab and Haryana High Court concerned a petition challenging the legality of proceedings initiated against the petitioner on allegations of defamation. The genesis of the dispute lay in a complaint filed by the second respondent alleging that certain online content was defamatory towards him, harming both his political and business career. The complaint was accompanied by a cease-and-desist notice issued through counsel to various online platforms including Google India Private Limited, YouTube, Facebook India Online Services Private Limited, and Twitter Communications India Private Limited, seeking removal or disabling of specific URLs and web links that carried the impugned content.
The complaint dated 06.12.2022 was filed against the petitioner, alleging commission of the offence of defamation under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Upon receipt of the complaint, the office of the Commissioner of Police, Gurugram, made a General Diary entry dated 06.12.2022, recording the allegations but observing that no cognizable offence was made out. The matter was referred for legal opinion to the District Attorney, who also opined that no cognizable offence was disclosed by the allegations.
Subsequently, the second respondent invoked the provisions of Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by moving an application before the Judicial Magistrate First Class. The Magistrate, upon consideration of the complaint and accompanying materials, observed that prima facie a case of defamation was made out and accordingly, vide order dated 21.12.2022, directed the Station House Officer concerned to register a non-cognizable report and conduct investigation into the matter.
Pursuant to this order, a non-cognizable report bearing NCR No. 65/2022 dated 31.12.2022 was registered at Police Station Badshahpur, District Gurugram, under Section 500 IPC. Following the registration of the NCR, investigation was carried out by the police. After completion of investigation, a chargesheet dated 29.05.2024 was filed before the Magistrate. Based on the chargesheet, notice was issued to the accused vide order dated 06.06.2024.
The petitioner challenged these proceedings by way of a petition before the High Court, seeking quashing of (i) the order dated 21.12.2022 passed by the Magistrate directing registration of a non-cognizable report, (ii) the registration of NCR No. 65/2022 dated 31.12.2022, and (iii) the chargesheet dated 29.05.2024.
The petitioner’s counsel submitted that in cases of defamation, the procedure adopted was contrary to law. It was argued that as per Section 199 Cr.P.C., a grievance of defamation can only be raised by way of a complaint by an aggrieved person before the competent court and not by way of police investigation. The counsel relied upon the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Kanhaiya Lal v. State of U.P. and another, 2000 Cri. L.J. 3886, as well as a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Harjit Singh Hassanpuri v. State of Punjab and another, CRM-M-38771-2011, to submit that the Magistrate could not have directed investigation under Section 155(2) in a defamation matter.
On the other hand, the learned State Counsel opposed the petition and submitted that the proceedings had been initiated on the basis of a complaint made by the second respondent, and pursuant to the Magistrate’s order under Section 155(2), the non-cognizable report was rightly registered. The State Counsel pointed out that after completion of investigation, the final report had been filed under Section 173(5) Cr.P.C. based upon the complaint of the second respondent, and therefore, the process adopted was in accordance with law.
The Court, after hearing both sides, proceeded to consider the legality of the proceedings and the scope of the Magistrate’s powers under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C.
The Court noted at the outset that the complaint filed by the second respondent disclosed commission of a non-cognizable offence of defamation. It recorded that the initial legal opinion obtained by the police as well as the General Diary entry had concluded that no cognizable offence was made out. However, it was open to the complainant to seek recourse under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. by moving an application before the Magistrate.
The Court referred to Section 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which deals with information as to non-cognizable cases and investigation of such cases. It observed: “When information is given to an officer in charge of a police station of the commission within the limits of such station of a non-cognizable offence, he shall enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf, and refer the informant to the Magistrate.” It further recorded: “No police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial.”
The Court then turned to the facts of the case and noted: “In this case, after considering the complaint and other material, a direction was issued by the Magistrate under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. to register a non-cognizable case and conduct investigation, vide impugned order dated 21.12.2022.” It held that the report of the investigating agency and the legal opinion of the District Attorney both indicated that prima facie the offence of defamation was made out, and therefore, the Magistrate was justified in issuing directions under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C.
The Court stated that the procedure under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. was distinct from the procedure under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It recorded: “It has been laid down in Kanhaiya Lal’s case (supra) that for offences falling under Chapter XXI, that includes Sections 499 and 500 IPC, no Court is competent to take recourse to provisions of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and direct registration of FIR, nor any FIR or any consequent investigation and submission of chargesheet in any Court by the police. Such a grievance can only be raised by an aggrieved party through a private complaint alone.”
The Court clarified, however, that in the present case, no direction had been issued under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and no FIR had been registered. Instead, the Magistrate had directed investigation into a non-cognizable offence under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C., which was permissible. It observed: “In the instant case, such a situation does not arise as the Magistrate has not issued any direction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to register an FIR, nor has any FIR been registered. Investigation in the case has been carried out on the basis of complaint disclosing non-cognizable offence against the petitioner, and chargesheet has been filed pursuant to directions issued under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C.”
With respect to the reliance placed on the Harjit Singh Hassanpuri case, the Court observed that it had no application to the facts of the present case, as the issue therein was different. It recorded: “The other judgment rendered in Harjit Singh Hassanpuri case (supra) also has no application to the facts of the instant case, as therein the Court has primarily relied upon Kanhaiya Lal’s case, which does not deal with the issue at hand.”
On this basis, the Court concluded that the procedure adopted by the Magistrate and the subsequent investigation and filing of chargesheet were in accordance with law and did not warrant any interference.
Having considered the submissions of the parties and the legal framework applicable, the Court proceeded to deliver its final order. It categorically held: “No exception can be taken to the procedure followed and the investigation carried out after registration of the NCR, as the same is in completion accordance with provisions of the Code. And the Magistrate has the jurisdiction to issue such a direction to investigate a non-cognizable case under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C.”
The Court recorded that the only ground urged by the petitioner was that the Magistrate had erred in issuing directions to register the case. However, this argument was rejected. The Court stated: “The only ground on which learned counsel for the petitioner has found fault with the impugned orders is that the procedure adopted by the Magistrate in issuing directions to the concerned SHO to register the case is not as per law. It has been laid down in Kanhaiya Lal’s case that provision of Section 199 Cr.P.C. intends to bar investigation and submission of chargesheet in any Court by the police. Such grievance can be raised by an aggrieved party through a private complaint alone. In the circumstances no Court is competent to take recourse to the provision of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for any offence falling under Chapter XXI.” The Court reiterated, however, that this was not a case of recourse to Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition, holding: “In view thereof, there is no merit in the petition and it stands dismissed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Hrishikesh Baruah, Advocate with Ms. Jasneet Kaur, Advocate
For the Respondents: Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana
Case Title: TV Today Network Limited v. State of Haryana and Another
Neutral Citation: 2025: PHHC:101445
Case Number: CRM-M-3523-2025
Bench: Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya
