Magistrate Can Dismiss Defamation Complaint By Applying Exceptions Under S.499 IPC Before Issuing Summons To Accused: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Thursday (05.10.2023) held that a Magistrate can dismiss a defamation complaint by applying the exceptions under section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 even before even summoning the accused.

“..nothing prevents the Magistrate upon application of judicial mind to accord the benefit of such Exception to prevent a frivolous complaint from triggering an unnecessary trial. Since initiation of prosecution is a serious matter, we are minded to say that it would be the duty of the Magistrate to prevent false and frivolous complaints eating up precious judicial time. If the complaint warrants dismissal, the Magistrate is statutorily mandated to record his brief reasons. On the contrary, if from such materials a prima facie satisfaction is reached upon application of judicial mind of an “offence” having been committed and there being sufficient ground for proceeding, the Magistrate is under no other fetter from issuing process,” a bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Bela M Trivedi observed.

In the matter at hand, a tender was floated by the Airports Authority of India for supply of Airfield Crash Fire Tenders at airports across the country. The appellant in this case, a Germany-based manufacturer of fire safety equipment, had applied for the same. However its bid was rejected and the tender was awarded to a company named Rosenbauer International. The appellant then complained to different authorities including the Minister of Civil Aviation, the Chairman of AAI etc that there were irregularities in the tender process indicating favouritism.

Based on these letters, the complainant, the Indian associate of Rosenbauer International, lodged a complaint before the Trial Court alleging criminal defamation. The Trial Court was of the opinion that a prima facie case was made out against the Appellant and issued summons. This summoning order was challenged by the Appellant under Section 482 CrPC before the High Court, which was dismissed. Against this order of dismissal, the Appellant approached the Apex Court.

In the matter at hand, the Apex Court framed two main legal questions for consideration:

1) Whether, while considering a private complaint alleging defamation, the Magistrate before summoning the accused must confine himself to the allegations forming part of the petition only or he may, applying his judicial mind to the exceptions to section 499, IPC, dismiss the complaint holding that the facts alleged do not make out a case of defamation?

“..issue of process under section 204 read with section 200, Cr. PC does not ipso facto stand vitiated for non-consideration of the Exceptions to section 499, IPC unless, of course, before the High Court it is convincingly demonstrated that even on the basis of the complaint and the materials that the Magistrate had before him and without there being anything more, the facts alleged do not prima facie make out the offence of defamation and that consequently, the proceedings need to be closed” the Apex Court observed in this regard.

The Apex Court observed that at the stage of issuing process, the Magistrate must form his opinion based on the allegations in the complaint and other material (obtained through the process referred to in section 200/section 202) as to whether 'sufficient ground for proceeding' exists, which is distinct from 'sufficient ground for conviction'. The latter is for determination at the time trial and not at the stage when process is issued.

The Apex Court observed that ordinarily it would be difficult to form an opinion that an exception under Section 499 is attracted at the time of issuing notice since neither a complaint for defamation is likely to be drafted with contents, nor are statements likely to be made on oath and evidence adduced.

However, the Court added that there is nothing that expressly mandates the Magistrate to consider whether any of the Exceptions to section 499, IPC is attracted at this juncture nor is there a bar against it.

“…it is not the law that the Magistrate is in any manner precluded from considering if at all any of the Exceptions is attracted in a given case; the Magistrate is under no fetter from so considering, more so because being someone who is legally trained, it is expected that while issuing process he would have a clear idea of what constitutes defamation. If, in the unlikely event, the contents of the complaint and the supporting statements on oath as well as reports of investigation/inquiry reveal a complete defence under any of the Exceptions to section 499, IPC, the Magistrate, upon due application of judicial mind, would be justified to dismiss the complaint on such ground and it would not amount to an act in excess of jurisdiction if such dismissal has the support of reasons”, the Apex Court said.

2) Is it open to the High Courts to exercise its inherent power under section 482, Cr. PC to quash proceedings for defamation by setting aside the summoning order by extending the benefit of any of the Exceptions to section 499, IPC?

In this regard the Apex Court said that under Section 482 CrPC, the High Courts cannot enlarge the scope of inquiry if the accused relies on materials which were not there before the Magistrate.

“…in a case where the offence of defamation is claimed by the accused to have not been committed based on any of the Exceptions and a prayer for quashing is made, law seems to be well settled that the High Courts can go no further and enlarge the scope of inquiry if the accused seeks to rely on materials which were not there before the Magistrate. This is based on the simple proposition that what the Magistrate could not do, the High Courts may not do,” the Apex Court said.

However, the Apex Court clarified that this does not undermine the High Courts' powers under section 482, Cr. PC and that its inherent power is always available to render real and substantial justice.

“..the High Courts on recording due satisfaction are empowered to interfere if on a reading of the complaint, the substance of statements on oath of the complainant and the witness, if any, and documentary evidence as produced, no offence is made out and that proceedings, if allowed to continue, would amount to an abuse of the legal process. This too, would be impermissible, if the justice of a given case does not overwhelmingly so demand,” the Apex Court said.

In light of the above legal observations and on merits, the Apex Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the Appellant.  

Case Title: M/S Iveco Magirus Brandschutztechnik Gmbh V. Nirmal Kishore Bhartiya & Anr

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC)860

Click here to read/download judgment