Defamation | Defence Of Truth Must Extend To Entire Libel And Not Just A Part Of It: Bombay High Court

Justice Amit Borkar refused to quash the complaint against Garg’s comments given to Mumbai Mirror, published on September 29, 2018, observing that they appeared to be only partly true and advocate Ravi Goenka, the complainant, deserves a chance to prove his allegations.

“it is necessary that the complainant (Ravi Goenka) should be granted the opportunity to prove that the article published by the petitioner (Harish Kumar Garg) has lowered his reputation in his profession as he is a practising advocate and enjoys a good reputation with the Bar…it would be sufficient to show that the petitioner intended or knew or had reason to believe that the imputation made by him would harm to the complainant”, the court held.

The complainant Ravi Goenka was a candidate in the 2018 elections to the club’s management committee. Goenka, along with some other candidates, alleged that the candidates were not given details of voters in order to campaign. He also accused the management committee of collusion with the third party that conducted the elections.

Garg denied the allegations and told Mumbai Mirror that the courts have not given any interim relief to Goenka.

Goenka claimed that there were various court proceedings between the parties, and he did get relief on September 19, 2018 via a court order directing Garg to give an inspection of the register of members. Thus, Goenka filed a complaint under section 500 IPC (punishment for criminal defamation) against Garg.

On December 15, 2018, a magistrate issued process against Garg. Therefore, he filed the present writ petition seeking quashing of the complaint and the issuance of process.

Garg argued that even if the allegations in the complaint are accepted as correct, they lack the necessary ingredients of defamation. He submitted that he had no intention to defame Goenka. The statement he gave to the newspaper is true, Garg argued.

The court noted that the enquiry under section 200 of the CrPC (examination of complainant) is limited to decide whether a prima facie case is made out.

The court said that at some stage some relief was granted to Goenka and in the subsequent stages the relief was refused. However, whether the statement that ‘no court has granted him any interim relief’ is true or false has to be ascertained at the stage of trial, the court held.

The court reiterated that truth as a defense must extend to the entire statement, and it is not sufficient that only part of the statement is proved to be true.

"Publication of truth as sufficient justification is available under exception (1) to section 499, provided it is made for the public good. But when the truth is set up as a defence, it must extend to the entire libel, and it is not sufficient that only a part of the libel is proved to be true. In the facts of the case, prima facie, it appears that part of the statement that no Court has given them any interim relief is partly true."

The court concluded that the magistrate applied judicial mind while issuing process against Garg and hence no case for interference is made out.

Advocate Apoorv Singh represented Garg while advocates Abhinav Chandrachud, Saurish Shetye, and Abhishek Bhaduri represented Goenka. APP AR Patil represented the State.

Case no. – Writ Petition No. 1798 of 2019

Case Title – Harish Kumar Garg v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.