Merely Stating That Two Persons Of Opposite Gender Have A Close Relationship Won't Amount To Defamation: Allahabad HC

Merely stating that two people belonging to the opposite gender share a close relationship, won't amount to defamation, the Allahabad High Court observed last week while quashing a summoning order in a defamation complaint case.

The Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh further observed that being close to someone in a natural or normal human relationship and forming an illicit relationship are two completely different things.

Facts of the case in brief 

It was submitted before the Court that the statements that form the subject matter of allegation of defamation, was recorded in the course of a criminal investigation, wherein, the applicant before the Court was listed as a prosecution witness against the complainant Naseem (the person who filed the defamation case).

Importantly, it was submitted that the applicant had only stated that the said Naseem had a close relationship with Sanyogita wife of Sompal and he had nowhere stated that Naseem had formed an illicit relationship with Sanyogita.

The applicant further contended that the statement made by the witness in the course of the investigation can never constitute the offence of defamation and since the criminal case was pending on the date of institution of the present defamation complaint, therefore, the allegation of defamation may not arise at such preliminary stage.

Therefore, the applicant moved to the High Court seeking quashing of summoning order issued in the 2007 defamation case.

Court's observations

At the outset, the Court noted that the criminal case (wherein the alleged defamatory was made) was pending on the date of the complaint being lodged and for that reason, the application appeared to be premature.

Further, without expressing any definite opinion if the alleged defamatory statement would constitute the offence of defamation, as such statement was made during a lawful proceeding, the Court noted thus:

"...the copy of the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. does appear to suggest that the applicant had only stated that the complainant Naseem had a close relationship with Sanyogita. In itself that may never be enough to constitute the offence of defamation."

Lastly, the Court noted that since it was not clear as to whether any further or other imputation relied upon in the complaint was actually made, as the complainant did not bring the material on record, the Court held that it would serve no useful purpose in allowing such a vague prosecution to continue, any further.

With this, the application was allowed and the summoning order was quashed.

Case title - Nakli Singh v. State of U.P. and Others

Click here To Download order

Read Order