Defamatory Statements In Pleadings Or Petitions Amount To Publication Under Section 499 IPC: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Justice Sanjay Dhar, while adjudicating the matter, stated, “The law is well settled that when pleadings containing defamatory material are relied before a court of law, the same amounts to publication within the meaning of Section 499 of RPC. Defamatory statements in pleadings, petitions, affidavits etc. of the parties to judicial proceedings constitute an offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC unless they fall within the exceptions enumerated in Section 499 of IPC.”

The case originated from business transactions between the respondent, a Srinagar based businessman, and the petitioner, another Jaipur based businessman, involving the sale and purchase of jewellery.

During their dealings, the respondent issued three cheques totalling Rs. 14.00 lakhs to settle an outstanding liability. Despite this settlement, the petitioner filed a complaint against the respondent in Jaipur, alleging that the respondent had not returned certain valuables.

The respondent was eventually detained in Jaipur following allegations made by the petitioner. These allegations included that the respondent was affiliated with the outlawed organization Hizbul Mujahideen. This serious accusation led to the respondent's initial bail application being rejected by the Sessions Judge in Jaipur.

Consequently, the respondent had sought bail from the High Court of Rajasthan, which was only granted after the National Investigation Agency (NIA) conducted an investigation and confirmed that the respondent had no links to any terrorist organization, including Hizbul Mujahideen.

The matter had reached the Srinagar Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) when the respondent filed a complaint in Srinagar, alleging defamation based on the statements made by the petitioner's lawyer during the bail hearing in Jaipur.

The respondent had claimed that these defamatory statements were published in various newspapers, causing reputational damage in Srinagar and other places where he conducted business.

Consequently, the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) Srinagar had issued an order finding that there was prima facie evidence of defamation based on the respondent's complaint and witness statements and accordingly issued a process against the petitioner.

The CJM had also noted that the consequences of the alleged defamatory statements were felt in Srinagar, thereby asserting jurisdiction under Section 179 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The petitioner challenged the complaint and the order issued by the Trial Magistrate on two main grounds. First, he argued that the contents of the complaint and the preliminary evidence did not establish an offence of defamation.

He also contended that the Trial Magistrate lacked the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, as the alleged defamatory statements were made in Jaipur, not within the jurisdiction of the Srinagar court.

Justice Dhar cited Thangavelu Chettiar vs. Ponnammal (AIR 1966 Mad. 363) and Trichinopoly Ramaswami Ardhanari and others vs. Kripa Shankar Bhargava (1991 M.P.L.J 597), confirming that filing a legal document with defamatory content counts as publication and that defamatory statements in legal documents are punishable unless they meet certain exceptions.

Justice Sanjay Dhar, answering the question, stated that “it can safely be stated that even the arguments made by a counsel upon instructions from his client, which are per se defamatory in nature, can form basis for prosecution of such client for offence under Section 499 of RPC.”

However, the court determined that CJM Srinagar did not have the authority to handle the case since the defamatory statements were made in Jaipur. The court emphasized that the defamatory act and its effects were confined to Jaipur, not Srinagar.

He explained, "The alleged defamatory submissions were made by counsel for the petitioner before the Sessions Court and the High Court at Jaipur, Rajasthan. So, the publication of alleged defamatory statements has taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of the Courts at Jaipur.”

The court also reviewed the news articles mentioned in the complaint and found that they were not defamatory. These articles mainly reported that the respondent was cleared of terror charges by the NIA, which does not support a defamation claim.

As a result, Justice Dhar ruled that the Trial Magistrate had made a mistake in accepting the complaint. He ordered the complaint to be returned so it could be filed in the correct court with proper jurisdiction.

Case Title: Satya Prakash Arya Vs Syed Abid Jalali

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 213

Click Here To Read/Download Judgement