Supreme Court quashes defamation case filed by lawyer against newspaper owner
Supreme Court of India
The Supreme Court has quashed a criminal complaint of defamation filed by a lawyer against the owner of a newspaper for publishing an alleged defamatory article with title "Advocate ne pan masala vyavasayi par karaya jhuta mamla darj (Advocate gets false case filed against pan masala seller)".
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has quashed a criminal complaint of defamation filed by a lawyer against the owner of a newspaper for publishing an alleged defamatory article with title "Advocate ne pan masala vyavasayi par karaya jhuta mamla darj (Advocate gets false case filed against pan masala seller)".
The decision was delivered by a bench of Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta on a special leave petition filed by an owner of the Madhya-Pradesh based newspaper ‘Sunday Blast’ challenging an order passed by the MP High Court.
Initially, a magistrate court in Hoshangabad had refused to initiate criminal prosecution for defamation against the registered owner of the newspaper for publishing the news article in 2013.
However, the order of the judicial magistrate was reversed by the Additional Session Judge in 2018 and the reversal was upheld by the high court in its impugned order.
The complainant advocate alleged that the owner Sanjay Upadhya had allowed the said news article to be published in his newspaper without ascertaining the true facts and that such publication brought down his reputation in the eyes of the public at large.
After going through the orders passed by the courts below as well as the high court, the apex court said that the rejection of complaint for criminal prosecution by magistrate court was a "well-reasoned order".
The Supreme Court said: "We are also of the view that the news article in question was published in good faith and in exercise of the Fundamental Right of Freedom of Speech and Expression enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India."
Allowing the appeal, the top court said that the view taken by the magistrate cannot be termed to be illegal or unjustified warranting interference by the High Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction.
"As a consequence, all proceedings sought to be taken against the accused appellant in pursuance of the complaint filed by the respondent-complainant under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 are also quashed," it added.
