Allahabad HC Dismisses Shooter Vartika Singh's Plea Challenging Dismissal Of Her Defamation Complaint Against Union Minister Smriti Irani

A Bench of Justice Mohd Faiz Alam observed that the trial court had given cogent reasons for not summoning Irani to face trial under section 499/500 IPC, as according to the trial court, there was no sufficient material/ground for proceeding further in the defamation case.

The Court added that Singh is a shooter of international fame and standard, she may be ideal to many youngsters, especially girls and hence, her reputation was not likely to be tarnished by the alleged statements by Irani.

The case in brief

Essentially, applicant-complainant (Singh) moved a private complaint against Irani before Sultanpur MP/MLA Court under section 499/500 IPC, alleging that the Union Minister made defamatory statements in the print and electronic media wherein she accused her (Singh) of close association with the Congress Party, labelling her as a criminal element, and referring to her as a "pawn (piyada) of Congress" with direct ties to the Gandhi family.

In support of the allegations made in the complaint, Singh testified herself as a witness, with her statement being recorded under section 200 CrPC. Additionally, her witnesses' statements were also recorded under section 202 CrPC.

After that, the trial court further ordered an investigation under section 202 CrPC. However, upon finding no merit in the case, the special court dismissed her complaint later. Challenging the dismissal of her complaint, Singh moved the High Court by moving a plea under Section 482 CrPC.

Supporting the order rejecting her defamation complaint, the AGA for the state submitted before the HC that if the association of the applicant-complainant is shown with any political family, the same by itself may not be a defamatory statement.

Thus, it was submitted that even if the allegations levelled in the complaint are taken on its face, the same may not attract necessary ingredients under section 499/500 IPC.

It was further submitted that there are five criminal cases registered against Singh.

High Court's observations

Perusing the complaint filed by Singh and the allegations levelled therein, the High Court noted that the alleged statements were part of Irani's long interaction with media persons in response to the question posed by the media person and in none of the two statements, Irani took Singh's name.

The Court also opined that the alleged defamatory statements may not be read in piecemeal as the statement in whole is to be looked into to assess as to whether the same is defamatory or not.

“…the impugned statement was given by the opposite party no. 2 (Irani) in response to the question posed by the media person and it is evident that in none of these two statements the name of the applicant-complainant has been taken by opposite party no. 2 and in response to the first question the opposite party no. 2 has criticized the political party, she in response to this question also criticised the same political party alleging that this is a conspiracy of that political party and the applicant-complainant (Singh) is having close association with that political party and the said political party should not use such persons who are themselves criminal elements,” the Court observed.

Further, the Court observed that alleging association of the applicant-complainant with a political party by itself may not be termed as derogatory/defamatory.

The Court added that Irani's alleged statement linking Singh to the 'Gandhi Family' would also not amount to defamation as the Gandhi family has a legacy of political personalities like Pandit Late (Shri) Jawahar Lal Nehru, Late (Smt.) Indira Gandhi and Late (Shri) Rajiv Gandhi.

“If both these statements given by the opposite party no. 2 are read conjointly, it would emerge that the intention of the opposite party no. 2 is/was to criticize a political party and not to make any imputation against the applicant-complainant,” the Court remarked as it found no illegality in Special MP/MLA Court's order.

The Court added that summoning in a criminal trial is a serious business and it is not so that by referring to the statements of the complainant and few witnesses the trial court should summon the proposed accused person to face trial, as being summoned to face trial in a criminal case would also place a stigma on the person who is being summoned to face trial and even if he/she is acquitted of the charges after many years of painful trial, the same may not be of any use.

Against this backdrop, the Court dismissed Singh's application moved under Section 482 CrPC.

Case title - Vartika Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home. Lucknow And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 146

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 146

Click Here To Read/Download Order