Delhi High Court - Orders
Praveen Shankar Kapoor vs Atishi Marlena on 4 February, 2025
$~97
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 689/2025
PRAVEEN SHANKAR KAPOOR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ajay Burman, Sr. Adv. and Mr.
Pawan Narang, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Neeraj, Mr. Shoumendu Mukherji,
Mr. Satya Ranjan Swain, Mr. Puneet
Dhawan, Mr. Varun Seth, Ms. Megha
Sharma, Ms. Tanvi Nigam, Mr.
Kautilya Birat, Mr. Himanshu Sethi
and Mr. Aniruddha Ghosh, Advocates
versus
ATISHI MARLENA .....Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN
ORDER
% 04.02.2025
1. The present petition has been filed seeking quashing and setting aside of order dated 28.01.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-24 (MP/MLA Cases), Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi in Criminal Revision being CR No. 33/2024, titled as 'Atishi Marlena Vs. Praveen Shankar Kapoor', whereby the learned Special Judge has set aside the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated 28.05.2024 summoning the respondent and has dismissed the complaint under Section 200 CrPC instituted by the petitioner.
2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that in order to divert the serious corruption issues and project themselves as victims of political vendetta, the AAP leaders started levelling baseless allegations against Bharatiya Janata This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/02/2025 at 22:13:13 Party (hereinafter referred to as 'BJP') by saying that BJP is approaching their MLAs and offering them bribes to the tune of Rs. 20-25 Crores for switching sides.
3. The allegations were initially posted on 'X' (formerly known as Twitter) by Mr. Arvind Kejriwal vide tweet dated 27.01.2024. The same was retweeted by the respondent on the same date. Subsequently, in the press conference held on 27.01.2024 itself, the respondent reiterated same allegations. The contents of the press conference were then reposted by the respondent on 27.01.2024 itself. Further, on 02.04.2024 another press conference was held by the respondent making a similar allegation.
4. Mr. Ajay Burman, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide his order dated 28.05.2024, after examining the pre-summoning evidence, had issued summons to the respondent to stand the trial for the offence under sections 499/500 IPC.
5. He submits that the said order was challenged by the respondent by preferring a revision petition being CR No. 33/2024 before the Court of learned Special Judge (PC Act) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Revisional Court'). The Revisional Court vide its impugned order dated 28.01.2025 has set aside the summoning order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.
6. He further submits that the Revisional Court has exceeded its jurisdiction by substituting its own views in place of well-reasoned summoning order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. To elaborate his submissions, Mr. Burman has invited the attention of the Court to para 114 of the impugned order dated 28.01.2025. He contends that the learned Revisional Court has tried to justify the actions of respondent by observing that she acted in the nature of whistleblower and cannot be treated as having This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/02/2025 at 22:13:13 acted to defame BJP. Mr. Burman submits that the Revisional Court ought to have confined itself to the inquiry as to whether ingredients of an offence of defamation are made out or not on the basis of the material placed before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, rather than recording reasons for justification for such an action.
7. Mr. Burman further submits that the case does not fall in an exception which provides truth as defence against an offence of defamation. He submits that the learned Revisional Court had directed the State to conduct an inquiry, albeit going beyond its jurisdiction. He invites attention of the Court to the letter dated 06.01.2024 from the Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Police: Crime III addressed to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Legal Division, PHQ, New Delhi to submit that during such inquiry a notice alongwith questionnaire was served to the respondent and she was asked to furnish the material in support of the allegations, however, the respondent had failed to supply any document, information or other evidence to substantiate her claim.
8. He further submits that the Revisional Court has wrongly observed that the petitioner is not a 'some person aggrieved' within the meaning of Section 199 CrPC for the offence of defamation under Section 500 IPC. He submits that the learned Revisional Court failed to appreciate the well settled law that the complainant need not necessarily be the defamed person. He submits that in terms of Explanation 2 to Section 499 IPC, any person who is member of association or organization or collection of persons or a member of an identifiable group, against whom defamatory material has been published, can be a complainant. In support of his submission, Mr. Burman places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in John Thomas Vs. Dr. K. Jagadeesan, (2021) 6 SCC 30, more particularly This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/02/2025 at 22:13:13 on paragraph 13 thereof, which reads thus:
"The collocation of the words "by some persons aggrieved" definitely indicates that the complainant need not necessarily be the defamed person himself. Whether the complainant has reason to feel hurt on account of the publication is a matter to be determined by the court depending upon the facts of each case. If a company is described as engaging itself in nefarious activities its impact would certainly fall on every Director of the company and hence he can legitimately feel the pinch of it. Similarly, if a firm is described in a publication as carrying on offensive trade, every working partner of the firm can reasonably be expected to feel aggrieved by it. If K.J. Hospital is a private limited company, it is too farfetched to rule out any one of its Directors, feeling aggrieved on account of pejoratives hurled at the company. Hence the appellant cannot justifiably contend that the Director of the K.J. Hospital would not fall within the wide purview of "some person aggrieved" as envisaged in Section 199(1) of the Code."
9. Mr. Burman also invites attention of the Court to Ground 'U' of the petition wherein various references from the impugned order have been enumerated, to contend that the learned Special Judge has made unnecessary and unwarranted observations which is akin to that of skilled political analysist and thereby exceeded the scope of its revisional jurisdiction. Further, such observations are not even part of the respondent's case nor relate to the subject matter of the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.
10. In view of the above, issue notice to the respondent by all permissible modes returnable on 30.04.2025.
VIKAS MAHAJAN, J FEBRUARY 4, 2025 'rs' This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/02/2025 at 22:13:13