2025 (2) TMI 1263 - SC - Indian Laws

Appeal allowed: process quashed where magistrate failed mandatory s.202 Cr.P.C. inquiry for accused outside jurisdiction; complaint infirm

SC allowed the appeal, quashing the High Court order, the magistrate's summons and the criminal complaint insofar as they related to the appellants. The ... Initiation of the criminal proceedings for the offences u/s 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 - liability of appellant for publication of the alleged defamatory news - Magistrate failed to comply with the procedure mandated under section 202 Cr.P.C. - HELD THAT:- Upon receiving a private complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate must mandatorily conduct an inquiry or investigation before proceeding to issue process against the accused, if such accused resides outside the jurisdiction of the Court. In other words, the Magistrate must examine witnesses before issuing summons in cases where the accused resides outside the Magistrate’s jurisdiction. This mandatory requirement of inquiry or investigation was introduced through section 19 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act (Central Act 25 of 2005) which came into effect from 23.06.2006 by introducing the words ‘and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction’. It is the editor who plays a key role in the publication process bearing responsibility for ensuring that the content published adheres to legal standards, including laws surrounding defamation. It is well settled that the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 imposes a higher degree of responsibility and liability on an editor. Section 5 of the Act mandates that every newspaper or periodical publication must specify the name of the editor and owner. Section 7 creates a rebuttable presumption that the editor whose name is printed in the newspaper shall be held to be the editor in any civil or criminal proceedings in respect of that publication. Since an “editor” has been defined as the person who controls the selection of the matter that is published in a newspaper, the presumption goes to the extent of holding that he was the person, who controlled the selection of the matter that was published in the newspaper. However, merely because the Act does not mention persons holding other roles in a publication of the company, such as an Editorial Director, or mandate the publication of their names, the same does not imply that such persons cannot be made liable for any defamatory content. The Magistrate, without a proper examination and inquiry, proceeded to issue summons to the appellant (A2). It is also pertinent to note here that the appellant (A2) resides in Mumbai, which falls outside the jurisdiction of the concerned Magistrate. In such a scenario, as discussed earlier, the Magistrate was required to proceed with the complaint in accordance with section 202(1) Cr.P.C. However, no such inquiry was conducted in the present case. Therefore, considering all these aspects, it is opined that the complaint is not maintainable against the appellant (A2). While passing the impugned order, the High Court referred only to one article authored by Ms. Neelam Raj (A4) and neither took into account nor discussed the other news articles authored by the remaining accused. Furthermore, the mandatory procedure under section 202 Cr.P.C., was clearly not followed. The Appellants viz., A8, A9, A10, A12 and A13 reside in Mumbai / Kolkata, whereas the complaint was filed in Bangalore. The complainant failed to produce any witness to prima facie establish that the alleged imputations had lowered their reputation in the estimation of others and the Magistrate, after merely reviewing the complainant’s statement, proceeded to issue summons. Thus, the Magistrate’s order clearly suffers from procedural irregularity. Ordinarily, such irregularities would warrant a remand. However, in the present case, the auction was conducted on 27.06.2014 and the complaint was filed on 22.08.2014 - it is inclined to quash the order passed by the High Court as well as the issuance of summons by the Magistrate. The power of the media in shaping public opinion is significant and the press possesses the ability to influence public sentiments and alter perceptions, with remarkable speed. As aptly stated by Bulwer Lytton, “The Pen is mightier than the sword”. Given its vast reach, a single article or report can resonate with millions, shaping their beliefs and judgments, and it has the capability to cause severe damage to the reputation of those concerned, with consequences that may be far-reaching and enduring. This highlights the critical need for accuracy and fairness in media reporting, especially when dealing with matters having the potential to impact the integrity of individuals or institutions. Keeping these aspects in mind, publication of the news articles must be done in public interest and with good faith. The impugned order passed by the High Court and summoning orders as well as the criminal complaint filed by the respondent, as far as the appellants herein are concerned - Appeal allowed. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether a private criminal complaint for defamation is maintainable against an Editorial Director (not named as 'Editor' in the print line) absent specific averments establishing his role in controlling selection of matter published. 2. Whether Section 202 Cr.P.C. (post-2005 amendment) mandated an inquiry or directed investigation before issuing process where accused reside beyond the Magistrate's territorial jurisdiction, and whether failure to comply vitiates the summoning orders. 3. Whether the publications, when read holistically, contained imputations satisfying the ingredients of criminal defamation under Section 499 IPC (intention/knowledge to harm and an imputation capable of lowering reputation in the estimation of others), including whether mere self-estimation of harm suffices in absence of prima facie evidence from third parties. 4. The appropriate remedy where (a) multiple accused in different States are charged in a single complaint for different articles published on different dates and (b) the trial/High Court orders dealt selectively with particular articles without considering others or procedural mandates. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Maintainability of complaint against Editorial Director (role distinct from 'Editor') Legal framework: Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867: Sections 1, 5 and 7 - definition of 'Editor', mandatory publication of owner/editor names in the print line, and statutory presumption that the person named as editor is the editor of the publication for legal proceedings. Precedent treatment: The Court referred to and applied precedents recognizing that (i) a statutory presumption exists against the person named as editor (Section 7), (ii) the Act does not create presumptions for other titles (e.g., Editorial Director), and (iii) non-editors can be proceeded against only where specific allegations establish their role (citing K.M. Mathew; Gambhirsinh R. Dekare). Interpretation and reasoning: The Court distinguished the statutory status of an 'Editor' from other designations. While the Act casts a rebuttable presumption on a named editor, it does not automatically make persons with other titles liable. Liability of an Editorial Director requires specific, substantive allegations showing control over selection/publication of the impugned matter. Broad or blanket averments that the Editorial Director 'oversaw content' without particulars do not suffice to justify issuance of summons, particularly where the person is outside the Magistrate's jurisdiction and no mandatory Section 202 inquiry was conducted. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where a complaint relies solely on a generic allegation of oversight by an Editorial Director (not named as Editor), and lacks specific averments of control or selection, issuance of process is not justified absent further inquiry. Obiter - observations on administrative vs editorial functions and the possibility of proceeding when specific allegations are pleaded. Conclusion: Complaint was not maintainable against the Editorial Director in the absence of specific averments; summons issued without compliant pleading and inquiry must be quashed as to that accused. Issue 2 - Mandatory nature of Section 202 Cr.P.C. inquiry when accused reside beyond Magistrate's jurisdiction Legal framework: Section 202 Cr.P.C. (as amended in 2005) requires postponement of process and an inquiry or directed investigation where the accused resides beyond the Magistrate's jurisdiction, with power to examine witnesses in such inquiry. Precedent treatment: The Court applied and followed prior decisions that treat the post-2005 provision as mandatory (citing Abhijit Pawar; Vijay Dhanuka; and distilled reasoning from prior rulings explaining that 'shall' in context is mandatory to prevent harassment of remote persons and that the inquiry must normally involve examination of witnesses where appropriate). Interpretation and reasoning: The amendment's purpose - to guard against false complaints filed to harass persons residing far away - makes inquiry mandatory where territorial nexus is absent. An inquiry entails examination beyond the complainant's statement (witnesses/verification) and is distinct from the minimal exercise under Section 200. Where the Magistrate issues summons after merely recording the complainant's statement and perusing documents without conducting the inquiry envisaged under Section 202, the procedure mandated by law has not been followed and the summoning order is vitiated. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - in cases where the accused reside outside the Magistrate's jurisdiction, failure to conduct the mandated Section 202 inquiry (or to direct investigation) before issuing process renders the summoning order procedurally infirm. Obiter - comments on what constitutes adequate inquiry in specific factual permutations. Conclusion: The Magistrate's failure to conduct a Section 202 inquiry for accused domiciled outside the territorial jurisdiction invalidated the issuance of summons; procedural failure warranted quashing of proceedings in this case. Issue 3 - Ingredients of criminal defamation and sufficiency of prima facie material at summoning stage Legal framework: Section 499 IPC (definition of defamation and Explanation 4 - lowering in the estimation of others) and Section 500 IPC (punishment). Core requirements: an imputation concerning a person, intention/knowledge that it will harm reputation, and capacity of the imputation to lower the person's standing in the estimation of others. Precedent treatment: The Court noted authorities permitting consideration of exceptions at pre-trial stage in some circumstances, but emphasised that at summoning stage a prima facie appreciation is required; it referenced earlier decisions recognizing the need to assess whether allegations, read in entirety, amount to imputations that could prima facie lower reputation. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court assessed the publications holistically. It noted that balanced reporting which records experts' views, cautions, or reports on controversy may not necessarily amount to imputations meeting Section 499's threshold. Mere self-estimation of harm by the complainant, without prima facie evidence from third parties that reputation was lowered, is insufficient. Additionally, where articles relied on previously published public discourse, quoted experts, or reported on legal notices and responses of the complainant, they may lack the requisite intention/knowledge to harm. Given the passage of time, absence of material showing actual damage, and the nature of the articles, the probability of securing third-party witnesses to show reputational lowering was remote. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - at the summoning stage the Magistrate must be satisfied on a prima facie basis that the imputation complained of is of a kind capable of lowering reputation in the estimation of others; mere assertions by the complainant without prima facie third-party evidence may be inadequate. Obiter - larger remarks on freedom of the press and the need for responsible reporting. Conclusion: The publications, when read in full and in context (including reliance on expert views and prior public discourse), did not furnish sufficient prima facie material to sustain criminal defamation proceedings against the appellants; the complaint's reliance on complainant's self-estimation and selective extraction of passages was inadequate. Issue 4 - Appropriate remedy where multiple procedural and substantive lacunae exist and selective judicial consideration occurred Legal framework: Principles governing quashing proceedings where procedural mandate is breached, where the complaint aggregates distinct publications and accused across jurisdictions, and where remand would be futile or oppressive given delay and lack of prospect of material improvement. Precedent treatment: The Court considered prior rulings where remand or further inquiry was ordered when procedural lapses could be cured; but it also acknowledged precedents where quashing was appropriate where inquiry would serve no useful purpose or would only prolong litigation without benefit. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court found that (a) the complaint consolidated different articles published in different States authored by different persons; (b) the trial and High Court orders addressed selectively one article and did not meaningfully consider others; (c) Section 202 inquiries were not conducted for out-of-jurisdiction accused; and (d) factual circumstances - completed auction long ago, absence of material showing actual damage, and low prospect of procuring witnesses after a decade - meant remand would be futile. In the balance between protecting reputation and safeguarding freedom of press (Article 19(1)(a)), and to meet the ends of justice, the Court concluded that quashing the criminal proceedings against the appellants was appropriate. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where procedural mandates (Section 202) are not followed and aggregate complaints span multiple jurisdictions and distinct publications, and where remand would be purposeless due to delay and lack of prima facie material, quashing of proceedings is justified. Obiter - observations reinforcing the need for media responsibility and caution in reporting. Conclusion: The Court quashed the summons and criminal complaint insofar as the appellants were concerned, reasoning that the combination of defective pleading against the Editorial Director, absence of mandatory Section 202 inquiry for out-of-jurisdiction accused, and insufficiency of prima facie material made continuation of the criminal proceedings unjustified; remand would serve no useful purpose given the long delay and paucity of prospective evidence.