Delhi District Court
Mrs Priti Saraf vs State Of Delhi on 17 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. PURSHOTAM PATHAK, ASJ-05,
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS: DELHI
DLST010023812023
Cr Rev/89/2023
MRS PRITI SARAF Vs. STATE OF DELHI
Mrs. Priti Saraf
W/o Sh. Rohit Saraf
R/o E-5, 2nd Floor,
Maharani Bagh,
New Delhi-110065 .................. Revisionist
Vs.
1. State of Delhi
Through its
Addl. Public Prosecutor
At- Department of Prosecution (south)
Saket Court Complex,
New Delhi
2. Mrs. Meera Goyal
B-45, Maharani Bagh,
New Delhi-110065 .............. Respondents
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 13.03.2023
ARGUMENTS HEARD ON : 23.01.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 17.05.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The present criminal revision petition u/s 397 Cr.P.C has been filed against the impugned summoning order dated 12.07.2022, in CT case no.13300/2017 titled as "Meera Goel Vs. Preeti Saraf" whereby, the Ld. ACMM, PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Cr Rev/89/2023 MRS PRITI SARAF Vs. STATE OF DELHI Page No. 1 of 18 Date:
2025.05.19 16:30:38 +0530South, Saket, summoned the accused for offence of defamation punishable u/s 500 IPC.
2. The facts in brief are that a complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C was filed by the complainant (respondent herein) with the allegation that on 28.04.2017, a false FIR no.132/2017 was registered by the accused Preeti Saraf (revisionist herein) against the respondent. In the said FIR the respondent moved an application seeking anticipatory bail. After the filing of the anticipatory bail, the revisionist filed written submissions dated 21.09.2017 before the court containing various falls, vexatious and defamatory material against the respondent, thereby, lowering the reputation of the respondent in society and people in general. She alleged that Sh. Prakash Chand, who has been associated with her was there in the Saket Court when the written submissions were submitted and he telephoned the complainant that he had read the defamatory written submissions and stated that he had no idea that the respondent was such a person who indulged in such criminal activities. The respondent has urged that the revisionist without any basis, only with a view to defame the respondent has alleged that number of cases are pending against the complainant/respondent.
3. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the respondent sought prosecution of the revisionist for offence under Section 500 IPC. Trial Court record reveals that the respondent in support of her allegations in pre-summoning evidence examined herself as CW1 and Sh. Prakash Chand Digitally signed by Cr Rev/89/2023 MRS PRITI SARAF Vs. STATE OF DELHI Page No. 2 of 18 PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.05.19 16:30:42 +0530 as CW-2. Upon hearing the arguments, the Ld. ACMM, vide impugned order, allowed the complaint of the respondent, finding sufficient ground to summon the revisionist. The relevant observations of Ld. ACMM are being reproduced for the sake of convenience:
"5. It is contended by the complainant that the accuse person be summoned for the offences punishable under Section 499/500 IPC. To prove the case, the complainant examined herself as CW1, she proved the complaint. The complainant examined Sh. Prakash Chand as CW2, he proved that accused person has tarnished the image of the complainant.
6. Complainant has been able to discharge the burden of proof successfully. Reliance has been placed upon the following judgments:
i) Sanjay Mishra Vs. Govt. of Delhi & Anr., Crl. MC No.3350/2008;
ii) M.N. Damani Vs. S.K. Sinha & Ors., (2001) 5 SCC 156;
iii) Dhiro Koch & Anr. Vs. Govinda Dev Mishra;
iv) Dr. J. Sudarshanvs R. Sankaran, 1992 CrLJ 2427;
v) Subramanian Swamy Vs. UOI, 2016 (7) SCC 221; and
vi) Sewakram Sobhani Vs. R.K. Karanjia, 1981(3) SCC 208.
7. There is enough material on record to summon the accused for the offence of defamation punishable under Section 500 IPC. Issue summons to the accused on filing of PF for 05.12.2022 for facing trial."
4. Revisionist has filed the instant petition assailing the impugned order on various grounds which can be summarized as under:-
i. that the Ld. Trial Court has passed the impugned order without considering the relevant facts and overlooking the documents on record which shows complete non-application of judicial mind.
PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM Cr Rev/89/2023 MRS PRITI SARAF Vs. STATE OF DELHI Page No. 3 of 18 PATHAK Date: 2025.05.19 16:30:45 +0530 ii. that the summoning order has been passed in the most mechanical manner without even taking into consideration that it is a matter of record and also an admitted position that FIRs/complaints were indeed filed either against the respondent no.2/ her husband or their companies and nowhere in the written submissions it is mentioned that the FIRs/complaints were pending as so alleged.
iii. that the summoning order is per-se unwarranted, has been passed in total disregard and violation of all the principles of law and established procedure and on incorrect appreciation of facts overlooking the order dated 14.08.2018 passed by Ld. ACMM, South.
iv. that it is a settled principle of law that the order taking cognizance and issuance of process against the accused ought to be a speaking order and it is incumbent upon the Magistrate to give reason for exercising its discretionary powers.
v. that the respondent no. 2 nowhere states that the cases mentioned in the written submissions are false and these cases are not filed against her/ her husband either individually or as a director of their companies or on their companies.
vi. that the Ld. ACMM did not appreciate that the provisions of the criminal law require strict interpretation and the liberty of a person cannot be Digitally signed by Cr Rev/89/2023 MRS PRITI SARAF Vs. STATE OF DELHI Page No. 4 of 18 PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.05.19 16:30:49 +0530 jeopardised merely on surmise or by travelling beyond the specific provisions of the law.
vii. that there is absolutely no reasoning given in the impugned summoning order dated 12.07.2022 as to what constitutes defamation especially since there is no false averment made by the petitioner and only true facts were stated bonafidely in the written submissions.
viii. that the Ld. Trial court ought to have considered that the present criminal proceeding has been instituted malafidely with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the revisionist with a view to cause her harassment on account of personal grudge.
ix. that the Ld. ACMM while passing the impugned summoning order dated 12.07.2022 did not even appreciate the contents of the written submission on the basis of which the respondent no.2 alleges to have been defamed.
x. that the Ld. Trial Court further completely overlooked that the CW-2 Prakash Chand does not state anywhere as to why he had gone to the court at the time of hearing of the anticipatory bail application of the respondent no. 2, when the written submissions were filed and if he had gone for any of his own matter, then how did he came in possession of the written submission.
PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Date: 2025.05.19 Cr Rev/89/2023 MRS PRITI SARAF Vs. STATE OF DELHI Page No. 5 of 18 16:30:53 +0530 xi. that Ld. ACMM further erred by not applying judicial mind to the fact that the written submissions were handed over to the Ld. ASJ, who was hearing the bail application and another set was given to the counsel for the respondent no. 2, then how did Prakash Chand (CW-2) allegedly read the submissions.
xii. that the Ld. ACMM further overlooked that the alleged imputation, which was based on truth, was made in good faith by revisionist for protection of her interest and she had no ill intention to defame the respondent no. 2 as has been alleged, hence she is squarely covered by 8th and 9th exception to Section 499 IPC.
xiii. that the case of the respondent no. 2 is nothing but an abuse of process of law and has been deliberately filed to cause harassment to the revisionist to tarnish her image.
xiv. that there is absolutely no reasoning given in the impugned summoning order dated 12.07.2022 as to what constitute defamation.
5. Ld. counsel appearing for the revisionist argued on the line of grounds as mentioned in the instant revision petition. She has vehemently argued that Ld. Trial Court committed grave error in passing the impugned order as the same was passed hastily ignoring the factual matrix and materials available on record. It was argued that no case for PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Digitally signed by Cr Rev/89/2023 MRS PRITI SARAF Vs. STATE OF DELHI Page No. 6 of 18 PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Date: 2025.05.19 16:30:58 +0530 summoning is made out against the reivisionist and the impugned order is liable to be set aside as there is no specific allegation against the revisionist. She submitted that CW-2 Prakash Chand is a planted witness and the respondent has falsely claimed that he was present in the court during the hearings on anticipatory bail application on 21.09.2017. She further submitted that the revisionist was summoned for the reason that in her written submissions, she has alleged that several cases are pending against the respondent whereas, no such allegation was made by the revisionist in the written submission and the revisionist has only stated that several cases have been filed against the respondent. On the strength of these arguments, revisionist seeks setting aside of the impugned order. Ld. counsel for the revisionist has relied upon following judgments:-
i. Jasraj Inder Singh Vs. Hemraj Multanchand, (1977) 2SCC 155, ii. Union Carbide Corporation Vs. Union of India & Ors. (1989) 3SCC 38, iii. Mohanlal Shamji Soni Vs. Union of India, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 271, iv. Maria Margardia Sequeria Fernandes Vs. Erasmo Jack De Sequeria, (2012) 5 SCC 370, v. Dalip Singh Vs. State of U.P., (2010) 2 SCC 114, vi. Satyender Singh Vs. Gulab Singh, 2012 (129) DRJ 128, vii. Girish Kumar Suneja Vs. CBI Criminal Appeal no.
1137 of 2017, viii. Madhu Limaye Vs. State of Maharashtra (1977) 4 SCC 551, ix. Dhariwal Tobacco Products Limited & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (2009) 2 SCC 370, Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.05.19 16:31:02 +0530 Cr Rev/89/2023 MRS PRITI SARAF Vs. STATE OF DELHI Page No. 7 of 18 x. Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande & Ors. Vs. Uttam & Another, 1999 SCC (Crl) 393, xi. Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation Manu/SC/0016/2015, xii. Pepsi Foods Ltd. Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate 1998 SCC (Crl.)1400, xiii. GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust Vs. India Infoline Ltd. 2013 (4) SCC 505, xiv. Smt. Krishna and Anr Vs. State Crl M.C. No. 493 of 2009, xv. Shri Ram Lal & Ors. Vs. Sh. Parvinder Singh & Ors. Reported in 1986 (10) drj 188, xvi. Jagdamba Devi Vs. Hem Ram & Ors. 2008 Crl. L.J 1623 (SC), xvii. Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. Crabtree (1974 LCR 120), xviii.Mehmbood Ul Rehman Vs. Khazir Mohammad Tunda & Ors, 2015 (2) JCC 1337, xix. Sanjeev Kumar Mittal Vs. The State (2010) 174 DLT 21.
6. Per contra, Ld. counsel appearing for respondent no.
2 refuted the said contentions by arguing that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity or incorrectness. He further argued that the material available on record is abundant to take cognizance and summon the revisionist for the offence. He submitted that the revisionist in the said written submissions has tried to convey that several cases are pending against the respondent and given a list of about 12 cases falsely alleging that the respondent is accused in the said cases. He submitted that the revisionist without any basis and only with a view to defame the complainant has alleged that number of cases are pending against the respondent. He submitted that the facts and circumstances stated herein, reveals that the Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.05.19 Cr Rev/89/2023 MRS PRITI SARAF Vs. STATE OF DELHI Page No. 8 of 18 16:31:07 +0530 revisionist by words intended to be read has published imputation concerning respondent to harm her reputation and has committed the offence of defamation as defined in Section 499 IPC punishable u/s 500 IPC. He further submitted that the said imputations have been made with an intention to convey a false message about the respondent thereby, causing serious doubts in the minds of the others for lowering the reputation of complainant/ respondent no.
2. He further submitted that the Ld. ACMM has passed the summoning order dated 22.07.2022 after going through the facts of the matter and evidence before the court, hence, there is no infirmity in the impugned summoning order.
7. Ld. counsel for the respondent no. 2 has relied upon judgments given below:
i. P S Meherhomji Vs. K. T. Vijay Kumar & Ors 2015 (1) SCC 788 ii. Prof. Ram Prakash Vs. D N Srivastava & Anr. 2014 (6) AD (Delhi) 713 (Delhi High Court) iii. M. B. Kanwar Vs. Teh State 1963 (1) Cri.L.J 609 iv. Balraj Khanna and Ors. Vs. Moti Ram 1989(1) Crimes 621 v. Sewakram Sobhani Vs. R. K. Karanjiya AIR 1981 SC 1514 vi. Pyarelal Maganlal Jaiswal Vs. State of Maharashtra 1996 Crl.L.J 989 vii. Satya Prakash Arya Vs. Syed Abid Jalali CrMC No. 129/2017, judgment dated 20.07.2024, viii. M. N. Damani Vs. S. K. Sinha & Ors (2001) 5 SCC 156 ix. Sanjay Mishra Vs., Govt. of Delhi & Anr. 2012 (2) JCC 1388 x. Dhiro Koch and Anr. Vs. Govinda Dev Mishra MANU/WB/0019/1921.
Digitally
signed by
PURSHOTTAM
PURSHOTTAM PATHAK
PATHAK Date:
2025.05.19
16:31:10
Cr Rev/89/2023 MRS PRITI SARAF Vs. STATE OF DELHI Page No. 9 of 18 +0530
xi. R. Sunder Vs. State of NCT Delhi 2016 (1) JCC 752 xii. K. Sitaram & Anr. Vs. CFL Capital Financial Services Ltd. & Anr. (2017) 5 SCC 725 xiii. Jagdish Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2004 SCC (Cri)1294 xiv. Nagawwa Vs. Weeranna AIR 1976 Supreme Court 1947 xv. Riyasat Ali Vs. State of UP 1992 Cri.L.J 1217 xvi. Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chauvan Vs. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke 2015(2) JCC 930 xvii. N.Tunkhankhup Vs. Narcotic Control Bureau 2011 (1) JCC 4.
8. I have heard the rival submissions advanced by the Ld. counsels for both the parties. I have also gone through the reply filed by the respondent no.2 and perused the record.
9. It appears that the respondent had filed a complaint against the revisionist before the Ld. ACMM, alleging therein that the revisionist has filed written submissions, dated 21.09.2017 before the court containing various falls, vexatious and defamatory material against the respondent, thereby, lowering the reputation of the respondent in society and people in general. The alleged defamatory allegations levelled against the respondent are as follows:-
" para 7 at page 8: that, it is to further bring to notice of this Hon'ble Court that the accused Meera Goyal had under the same Modus Operandi, earlier forfeited on same property in the year 2007 a sum of Rs. 18 Crores from Shinestar Buildcon Private Limited. Conduct of accused can be seen from Income tax proceedings which were initiated against the accused and in the said proceedings which was filed by the Income Tax Department before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi being no. 1263/2011 title CIT Vs. Meera Goyal, the issue was about leasing of the property to Goyal MG Gases was raised by income tax Authorities and in that proceedings the accused had informed the authorities that she had, vide her letter dated Cr Rev/89/2023 MRS PRITI SARAF Vs. STATE OF DELHI Page No. 10 of 18 Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.05.19 16:31:13 +0530 31.01.2007, terminated the lease with Goyal Gases but in the present proceedings its admitted that lease was existing at the time of signing of the ATS in December, 2011 so the accused has been submitting one set of facts before one judicial forum and entirely different facts before the Hon'ble court."
"Para 8 at page 9: The Notoriety of the co-accused and her husband is apparent from the numerous cases filed against them by various person/ companies etc. either against them personally or as a Director of accused companies."
10. The list of cases pending against the complainant / respondent as mentioned by the revisionist in written submissions are given below:-
"a. FIR 118/2013: PS:CIDCO (Aurangabad Case) U/s 406/420/34 IPC.
b. Crime No. 254/10 registered at PS: Chakiardhar Nagar against the petitioner.
c. FIR 34/2011, PS: Fatehpur Beri u/s 186/353 (IO's Case), the IO in crime no. Delhi for investigation where petitioner and her Husband instructed their driver to run over the IO in order to kill him. d FIR no. 46/17: (Nagpur) U/s 452,506-B/507/34 IPC e. Complaint u/s 403/406/420/120-B: C No. 56-SW/2011 by Benzoplast f. FIR No. 832 Bhopal, MCRC No. 3253/2012 g. Cr. MC no. 3002/2015 and 3016/2015 (Appeal against orders passed by the Court of Sh. Brijesh Garg, Ld. ASJ h. Forgery Complaint in EOW by Blue Coast Hotels and Resorts i. FIR No. 511/2005, PS CP, filed by M/s Petunia Financial Services Private Limited j. FIR no. 505/2005, PS Defence Colony u/s 409/406/411/465/468/471/120-B IPC by M/s Niketan Traders Limited.
k. Prakash Aggarwal Vs. State and Anr. FIR 110/2005, PS Parwanoo l. Morgan Securities and credits Vs. State & Anr. FIR no. 108/2005, PS Parwanoo.
11. According to the complainant/respondent, all these averments made in written submission including the annexure 'C' are false and has tarnished the reputation of respondent. It is stated in the complaint that aforesaid allegations cannot be believed as no case is pending against Digitally Cr Rev/89/2023 MRS PRITI SARAF Vs. STATE OF DELHI Page No. 11 of 18 signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.05.19 16:31:19 +0530 the respondent. She has also given the status of cases which have been alleged in the written submissions to have been filed against her. Status of cases as given by the respondent in complaint are as under:-
i. FIR 118 of 2013, Police Station CIDCO (Aurangabad Case) under Section 406/420/34 IPC (The said allegation is false as the said FIR has been quashed by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) vide its order dated 04.07.2016 copy of order is annexed as Annexure-E.) ii. Crime no. 254/10 registered at PS : Chakardha Nagar against the Respondent no. 2. (The respondent no. 2/ complainant was not an accused in the crime and the FIR has been quashed by Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh vide its order dated 101.05.2015. Copy of FIR and the order dated 01.05.2015 passed by High Court is annexed as annexure F.) iii. FIR 34/2011, PS: Fatehpur Beri under section 186/353 IPC.
(The FIR was dropped against the respondent no. 2 / complainant in the present case and chargesheet was filed only against the complainant's Ex.-driver.) iv. FIR No. 46/17: (Nagpur) u/s 452, 506 B, 507/34 IPC -(The complainant is not an accused in the present case. Copy of FIR is annexed as Annexure -G.) v. Complaint u/s 403/406/420/120 B by M/s Benzoplast- (The summoning order was stayed in the revision by the court. It was not an FIR but a private complaint against a company named Morgan Securities & Credits Pvt. Ltd. The complainant was a party as they are the directors of one of the said company. Further as of now the complaint is quashed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.) vi. FIR No. 832 Bhopal, MCRC No. 3253/2012 (The respondent no. 2/complainant is not an accused in the said FIR.) vii. Cr. MC No. 3002/2015 and 3016/2012 (The complainant is not an accused in the matter and moreover it is an income tax matter.) viii. Forgery Complaints in the EOW by Blue Coast Hotels and Resorts. (It is submitted that no FIR has been registered against the complainant / respondent no. 2. Further to the best of the complainant / respondent no.2's knowledge the application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C., 1973 was filed against the Complainant that was rejected on 16.12.2010 and even the revision against the said order was dismissed by the Ld. ASJ) PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Cr Rev/89/2023 MRS PRITI SARAF Vs. STATE OF DELHI Page No. 12 of 18 Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Date: 2025.05.19 16:31:24 +0530 ix. FIR no. 511/2005, PS CP, filed by the M/s Petunia Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.- (FIR has been quashed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its order dated 23.09.2013.) x. FIR No. 505/2005, PS: Defence Colony, under section 409/406/41 1/465/468/471/120B IPC by Mis Niketan Traders Ltd. - (The said FIR has been quashed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its order dated 23.09.2013.) xi. FIR No. 110/2005, PS: Parwanoo-(The matter has been stayed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 28.05.2007 and the quashing petition is pending adjudication. Copy of the order in annexed as Annexure J.) xii. FIR No. 108/2005, PS- Parwanoo- (FIR has been quashed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its order dated 23.09.2013.)
12. Both the witnesses CW-1 and CW-2 have stated that the revisionist had filed the written submissions to tarnish the reputation of the respondent and after going through the written submissions the image of respondent no.2 got lowered in the eyes of CW-2.
13. The provision of the law is very much specific in this regard u/s 499 IPC, which reads as under :-
"S.499 Defamation- "Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person.
Explanation 1- It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives.
Explanation 2 - It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such.
Explanation 3 - An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation.
Explanation 4 - No imputation is said to harm a person's reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM Cr Rev/89/2023 MRS PRITI SARAF Vs. STATE OF DELHI Page No. 13 of 18 PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.05.19 16:31:35 +0530 that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, - or in a state generally considered as disgraceful
14. The Hon' ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Mohd. Abdulla Khan v. Prakash K., (2018) 1 SCC 615 discussed the ingredients for constituting the offense of defamation under Section 499 IPC as follows:-
".... 11. An analysis of the above reveals that to constitute an offence of defamation it requires a person to make some imputation concerning any other person;
(i) Such imputation must be made either
(a) With intention, or
(b) Knowledge, or
(c) Having a reason to believe that such an imputation will harm the reputation of the person against whom the imputation is made.
(ii) Imputation could be, by
(a) Words, either spoken or written, or
(b) By making signs, or
(c) Visible representations
(iii) Imputation could be either made or published..."
15. The Apex Court in case titled as Subramanium Swami Vs. Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 221, also observed as follows:-
" .... 165. For the aforesaid purpose, it is imperative to analyse in detail what constitutes the offence of "defamation" as provided under Section 499 IPC. To constitute the offence, there has to be imputation and it must have been made in the manner as provided in the provision with the intention of causing harm or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of the person about whom it is made. Causing harm to the reputation of a person is the basis on which the offence is founded and mens rea is a condition precedent to constitute the said offence. The complainant has to show that the accused had intended or known or had reason to believe that the imputation made by him would harm the reputation of the complainant. The criminal offence emphasises on the intention or harm. Section 44 IPC defines "injury". It denotes any harm whatever illegally caused to any person, in body, mind, reputation or property.
PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Cr Rev/89/2023 MRS PRITI SARAF Vs. STATE OF DELHI Page No. 14 of 18 Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Date: 2025.05.19 16:31:44 +0530 Thus, the word "injury" encapsulates harm caused to the reputation of any person. It also takes into account the harm caused to a person's body and mind. Section 499 provides for harm caused to the reputation of a person, that is, the complainant. In Jeffrey J. Diermeier v. State of W.B. [Jeffrey J. Diermeier v. State of W.B., (2010) 6 SCC 243 : (2010) 2 SCC (Civ) 656 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 138] , a two-Judge Bench deliberated on the aspect as to what constitutes defamation under Section 499 IPC and in that context, it held that there must be an imputation and such imputation must have been made with the intention of harming or knowing or having reason to believe that it will harm the reputation of the person about whom it is made. In essence, the offence of defamation is the harm caused to the reputation of a person....".
16. Thus, in view of the above discussion, it is clear that the most important ingredient to make a person criminally liable under Section 499 IPC is to establish dishonest intention or necessary mens rea on the part of the accused who should have the intention to harm the reputation of the person. Even if, it is established that the words either written or spoken were derogatory, there will be no criminal liability under IPC unless mens rea or the intention not to act in good faith is established. Therefore, it is to be seen whether the complainant has succeeded in establishing all the ingredients under Section 499 IPC or whether his case false within any of the exceptions attached to Section 499 IPC.
17. The respondent has alleged that the revisionist has deliberately made imputations against the complainant /respondent that several cases are pending against her.
18. It is not disputed that both the parties are known to each other and are having several litigations between them. It is admitted that the cases mentioned in the written Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.05.19 16:31:48 +0530 Cr Rev/89/2023 MRS PRITI SARAF Vs. STATE OF DELHI Page No. 15 of 18 submissions have been filed. The main grievance of complainant/respondent is that the revisionist defamed her by using the word 'pending' whereas no case was pending against her. However, from perusal of written submissions it transpires that the revisionist has nowhere used the word 'pending' and has used the word 'filed' for the cases against complainant/ respondent. The complainant /respondent has filed the status of aforesaid cases. Admittedly, the respondent or her husband or company are involved in these cases and although the cases may not be pending, but they were filed. It is clear from the perusal of the averments made in Para 7 & 8, page 23 and annexure C of the written submissions that through these averments the revisionist sought to justify her allegations made in complaint made by her and to bring on record the previous involvement of accused / respondent which in a case of bail is relevant to be considered.
19. On reading the above status of cases along with the para of the written submissions, it becomes clear that the revisionist had no intention to defame the respondent. She was just trying to put up a strong case against the respondent, who was accused in FIR registered against the respondent on the complaint of revisionist. The revisionist made the aforesaid imputations in her written submissions in good faith to protect her interest. Suffice it would be to say that the said allegations made in the written submissions cannot be termed as defamatory so as to constitute the offence of defamation. When once the Digitally signed Cr Rev/89/2023 MRS PRITI SARAF Vs. STATE OF DELHI Page No. 16 of 18 by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.05.19 16:31:52 +0530 allegations are not defamatory, they cannot lower the reputation of respondent in eyes of Sh. Prakash Chand, even if it is believed the that he was present in court on 21.09.2017 and had gone through the written submissions.
The case of revisionist clearly falls within the purview of exception 9 of Section 499 IPC.
20. It is a settled law that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s. Pepsi Foods & Anr Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors., AIR 1998 SC 128, wherein it was observed:-
"Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and that would be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. Magistrate has to carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused".
21. Similar are the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravindranatha Bajpe vs Mangalore Special Economic Zone Ltd. & Others, Crl Appeal No.1047- 1048/2021 dated 27th September 2021. If the factual matrix of the present case is tested upon the touchstone of the principles as laid down in said cases, I am of the considered Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.05.19 16:31:56 Cr Rev/89/2023 MRS PRITI SARAF Vs. STATE OF DELHI Page No. 17 of 18 +0530 view that no ground for summoning of respondent was made in the instant case and therefore the view as taken by Ld. MM cannot be faulted with.
22. It is noticed that there is no iota of allegation to substantiate that revisionist had made any imputation against respondent no.2 which will amount to defamation.
23. The judgment relied upon on behalf of respondent no.2 does not come to her aid in the factual matrix of present case.
24. In view of above discussion, I have no hesitation in holding that the impugned order as passed by the Ld. ACMM, is not sustainable in law as it suffers from vital illegalities and irregularities.
25. Accordingly the revision petition, as filed by the revisionist is allowed and the impugned order is set aside as prima facie there is no material to summon the revisionist.
26. TCR be sent back to Ld Trial Court along with copy of this judgment.
27. Revision file be consigned to record room after due compliance. PURSHOTTAM Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date: 2025.05.19 16:32:14 +0530 ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (PURSHOTAM PATHAK) TODAY ON THIS ASJ-05(SOUTH) 17th DAY OF MAY, 2025 SAKET COURTS: N.D (This judgment contains total 18 signed pages) Cr Rev/89/2023 MRS PRITI SARAF Vs. STATE OF DELHI Page No. 18 of 18