The Jharkhand High Court has dismissed the petition filed by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi to quash the ongoing proceedings in the trial court in a criminal defamation suit filed against him for calling former Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) national president and current Union Home Minister Amit Shah a "murder accused".

On February 16, Gandhi's written version was presented in the court, after which, the bench of Justice Ambuj Nath reserved the decision.

BJP Leader Navin Jha had filed a complaint case against Rahul Gandhi, alleging therein that in the AICC Plenary Sessions dated 18.03.2018, Rahul Gandhi had made a speech against BJP and labelled Shah as a murder accused.

Being aggrieved by his statement, Jha, filed the present complaint case. It was stated in the complaint petition that the statement made by Gandhi, 'was not only false rather, it was an insult to all workers, supporters and the leaders who have been working selflessly for the Bhartiya Janata Party.'

Following this Magistrate court at Ranchi dismissed Jha's complaint, aggrieved by which, he filed a Criminal Revision Petition before the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi.

The Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi set aside the order dismissing the complaint petition observing, “A Prima facie reading of the speech indicates that the reference to the Bhartiya Janata Party and members has been abundantly and repeatedly made. It is to be seen whether these references amount to defamation or not. It is not to be seen whether they are incidental or not, because a portion may amount to an imputation made to harm one's reputation while also being indicated to the entire speech at the same time” .

The Judicial Commissioner remanded the matter back to the Magistrate with a direction to re-appreciate the evidence available on the record and pass an order afresh on the point of determining prima facie material to proceed in the matter.

The Magistrate, on the basis of the direction given in the Criminal Revision, passed a fresh order on 28.11.2018 and came to a finding that a prima facie case was made out against Gandhi under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code and issued process for his appearance.

The questions before the Court were whether the statements made by Gandhi would give rise to Cause of action to the opposite party no, 2 to file the present complaint case as it was not made against him in personal capacity; Whether the aforesaid statement will prima facie amount to defamation?

Gandhi had challenged the Judicial Commissioner's order and the subsequent order of the Magistrate.

The Court observed,

“The speech made by Mr. Rahul Gandhi has imputed the Bhartiya Janata Party leadership to be liars who are drunk with power and that the Bhartiya Janata Party workers will accept a person accused of murder as the president of Bhartiya Janata Party but people will never accept the same in the congress party. Prima facie this statement points out that Mr. Rahul Gandhi has imputed that the Bhartiya Janata Party leadership was drunk with power and was composed of liars. It further means that the party workers of Bhartiya Janata Party will accept such person/persons as their leader. This imputation is prima facie defamatory in nature.”

While expounding on Section 499 read with Explanation-2 of the Indian Penal Code the Court emphasized that it was evident that the expression “any person” in Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code includes a company or association or a collection of a persons and Bharatiya Janata Party is a prominent political party which is well identifiable and will come within the meaning of Explanation-2 of Section 499 IPC.

The Court held, “Opposite party no. 2 being a party worker of Bhartiya Janata Party in my view, has locus standi to file the aforesaid complaint case under Sections 499/500 of the Indian Penal Code.”

“It appears that prima facie case under sections 499/500 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner Mr. Rahul Gandhi for imputing the Bhartiya Janata Party leadership as liars and drunk with power,” the Court added.

Advocate Kaushik Sarkhel, the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that Jha had no locus standi to file this case, and that the provision under section 199 Cr.P.C. had not been complied with. Sarkhel also submitted that the Revisional Court had overlooked the mandate of law as enshrined in Section 398 of Cr.P.C. as it had directed the subordinate magistrate to make further enquiry into the complaint.

Senior Counsel, Advocate Ajit Kumar, representing Navin Jha, argued that the current application was filed subsequent to the second order issued by the Magistrate. This order found a prima facie case under Section 500 of the IPC and mandated Gandhi's appearance. Kumar noted that this order had not been contested in the present application.

Furthermore, Kumar highlighted that Gandhi had contested the order from the Judicial Commissioner through a Criminal Revision. He asserted that this crucial detail was omitted from the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, indicating a suppression of facts. Subsequently, an Interlocutory Application was filed on behalf of Gandhi, appending the order passed under Section 204 Cr.P.C. with a request to amend the order issued in Cr. M.P. No. 4241 of 2018 to annul this order as well.

Advocate Sarkhel interjected, clarifying that the order dated 28.11.2018 was issued by the S.D.J.M, Ranchi, under Section 204 Cr.P.C. Sarkhel contended that at the time of initiating the criminal miscellaneous petition, Gandhi was unaware of this order. Only upon receiving the summons did Gandhi realize the existence of the order under Section 204 Cr.P.C., prompting the filing of an amendment petition via an interlocutory application.

Sarkhel further argued that since Gandhi resided beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the inquiring magistrate, compliance with Section 202 Cr.P.C. had not been met.

However, the Court while expounding on Section 202 of the Cr.P.C., opined, “In the present case the process under section 204 Cr.P.C. has been issued by Subordinate Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi after conducting an enquiry. Accordingly, it is apparent that the provision of section 202 Cr.P.C., with regards to the fact that the petitioner was residing outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, has been fully complied with.”

The Court further said, “In my opinion whether there was any intention on the part of the petitioner to harm the reputation of the Bhartiya Janata Party cannot be decided during the stage of enquiry. It has to be decided during the stage of trial.”

Sarkhel, also submitted that the Revisional Court had directed the learned S.D.J.M. to make further enquiry into the complaint.

“Thus, by making this observation the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi has overlooked the mandate of law as enshrined under section 398 Cr.P.C,” the Court opined.

Expounding on Section 398 Cr.P.C., the Court observed that on examining any record under section 397 of the Cr.P.C. or otherwise, the High Court or Sessions Judge, may direct any magistrate sub-ordinate to him to make further enquiry into the complaint which was dismissed under section 203 of Cr.P.C.

However, the Court further observed that proviso to this section provides that no court shall make any direction under this section or enquiry into the case of any person who has been discharged unless such person of showing cause why such a direction should not be made.

From the perusal of the record, the Court observed that the Judicial Commissioner Ranchi had not directed the Magistrate to conduct further enquiry in this case.

The Court asserted, “The learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi has only directed the Subordinate Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi to re appreciate the evidence available on the record and to pass an order afresh on the point of determining prima facie material to proceed in the matter. It does not appear that Mr. Rahul Gandhi was discharged after making his appearance or otherwise from the case.”

“Learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi at the very first instance had dismissed the complaint case under section 203 of the Cr.P.C. and as such proviso of section 398 of the Cr.P.C. will not be applicable. However, be that as it may, from the perusal of the case records of complaint case no. 1698/2018, it transpires that no further enquiry was made by the learned Magistrate and just after the receipt of the order passed in Criminal Revision No. 281 of 2018, the learned Judicial Magistrate passed fresh order finding prima facie case to be true under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code and thereby directed for issuance of process under section 204 Cr.P.C,” the Court added.

The Court did not find any illegality in the impugned orders, finding the prima facie case to be true against Gandhi under Section 500 IPC.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition.

Click Here To Read Judgement

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 31