Delhi District Court
M/S L.G Electronics India Private ... vs Manish Yadav on 30 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Presided over by - Ms. Medha Arya, DJS
CT Case No. : 8463/2018
Police Station : Saket
Section(s) : 499/500 IPC
In the matter of -
M/s LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.
Vs.
Manish Yadav
S/o Sh. J.S. Yadav
R/o H. No. 1311, Sector 14
Faridabad (Haryana) .... Accused
Sh. Vinay Prakash Singh, AR
1. Name of Complainant :
of the complainant company
2. Name of Accused : Manish Yadav
3. Offence complained of or proved : 499/500 IPC
4. Plea of Accused : Not guilty
5. Date of commission of offence : Unknown
6. Date of Filing of case : 22.06.2018
7. Date of Reserving Order : 25.09.2025
8. Date of Pronouncement : 30.10.2025
9. Final Order : Acquitted
Argued by - Ms. Nidhi Raj Bindra, ld. counsel for complainant.
Sh. Mayank Mikhail Mukherjee, ld. counsel for accused.
M/s LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Manish Yadav CT Case No. 8463/2018, PS: Saket Page 1 of 20 "Freedom of expression is the matrix, the indispensable condition of nearly every other form of freedom."
- Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo, Palko v.
Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937) In a democratic polity, public criticism of corporate policy, even if harsh or unpalatable, cannot be stifled under the guise of defamation. The right to comment, dissent, and question remains the lifeblood of free discourse.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION FACTUAL MATRIX -
1. Vide this judgment, this Court shall dispose of the instant complaint filed by complainant M/s LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., through its AR, against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 499/500/504/506 IPC.
2. It is the complaint of the complainant that it is a company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at A-Wing, D-3, District Centre, Saket. It is its case that it has been intentionally and deliberately maligned by the false imputations of the accused through his post on his personal page on Facebook/Instagram (social media websites).
3. The complaint records the averments of the complainant to the effect that the accused is the Director of Garrison Tools Pvt. Ltd., which is also a company incorporated under the Companies Act. It is the case of the complainant that Garrison Tools Pvt. Ltd. was supplying the complainant M/s LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Manish Yadav CT Case No. 8463/2018, PS: Saket Page 2 of 20 company with necessary parts used for manufacturing electronic and other durable products, as per the specifications of the complainant company. On account of delay in supply, supply of defective parts, as well as the exorbitant pricing of the said parts, the complainant company terminated all business relationships with Garrison Tools Pvt. Ltd. vide termination letter dated 25.05.2018.
4. As a reaction thereto, with malafide intentions and conduct, on 30.05.2018, the accused posted a defamatory post against the complainant on his Facebook page, "My Manish Yadav", along with a graphic image, calling for the boycott of LG products. It is the case of the complainant that the accused intentionally and deliberately instigated the general public at large by requesting them to like and share his Facebook post calling for the boycott of the products of the complainant company. Upon its publication, the said post was viewed by thousands of people, evident from the fact that 677,000 people 'liked' the said post, 47 people shared it, and 77 others commented on the said post. The complaint details the post of the accused, which is necessary to be reproduced hereunder as well:
On 30.05.2018 @ 10:03 AM "LG Electronic India Limited has put our lives in miserable conditions with low chances of survival by acting as big Mafia and also Govt of Korea is backing them by lobbying in Diplomatic circles to show power against innocent Indians. People working day-in and day-out at Garrison have been forced to suffer, as they are finding it difficult to meet their daily needs, all praises for #LG. Koreans government is backing these group of companies in fulfilling their un-wanted dreams and take Indian integrity. I urge our Honourable Prime Minister Narendra Modiji to look into this matter and help to save sovereignty and integrity and freedom of Indian people.
LGEIL has involved itself with innovations and new techniques, little M/s LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Manish Yadav CT Case No. 8463/2018, PS: Saket Page 3 of 20 do they value the efforts of the people who are working to make the most loved brand LG to reach the new heights. Employees of Garrison are bearing the cost of their ill-working strategies. This is how Multinational companies are growing in India under your regime PMO India ZeeNews "DNA" Republic ABP News #garrison #LGEILissue #LGcelebrating2lyrsinIndia # koreanlobby All India Lg Electronics Workers Union Ministry of Finance, Government of India Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India Ministry of Corporate Affairs Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India"
5. It is further the case of the complainant that on the same day, at about 05:28 PM, with a similar graphic image, the accused again posted the following on his Facebook page:
On 30.05.2018 @ 05:28 PM "Long ago Indians saw invasion/ rule of Britishers, now India has once again given the chance to other countries. In ancient times, Britishers came with their East India Company, this time the name has been changed to Multi National Companies (fondly called as MNCs). #Koreans have already laid their foundation to capture Indian market, giving Indians not only the tough competition but leaving Indians at the losing end. Healthy competition is great but making Indian brands vulnerable to mark their own standing, by destroying domestic market is not acceptable. #LGEIL came to India 21 yrs ago in order to boost the Indian market and flourish their Korean interests. Now, LGEIL has created a big market for itself, leaving no grounds for the domestic market to operate. Koreans are taking over Indian brand value and applauding none of the people, working for/with them. Time to wake up every Indian and #boycottLG PS: #SaafNiyatSahiVikas should be the goal. I request you all to share and start the campaign #BoycottLG & #BharatBachao."
6. It is the case of the complainant that a similar post was published by the accused on his Instagram account under the name "My Manish Yadav", with the same graphic image. It is the case of the complainant that each of the said posts was viewed by a large number of people, evident from the reactions the said posts garnered online, and the complainant was defamed M/s LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Manish Yadav CT Case No. 8463/2018, PS: Saket Page 4 of 20 in the process. It is the case of the complainant that the accused had the intention to defame, harm, and injure the reputation, image, and goodwill of the complainant company by publishing such defamatory posts against it and by calling for a boycott of the products of the complainant company. It is further the case of the complainant that not only has the accused defamed the complainant company, but has also made derogatory, defamatory, and baseless allegations against the Government of the Republic of Korea as well, with a view to disturb public order by inciting the general public at large and by disturbing the friendly relations of the Government of India with the Republic of Korea. The complaint averments are further to the effect that complainant's reputation has been tarnished on account of the posts of the accused, which he failed to remove from his social media pages despite due service upon him of the legal notice dated 11.06.2018. It is the case of the complainant that the said posts were published by the accused with vengeance and vendetta, being aggrieved by the termination of the contractual relationship between the parties, compelling the filing of the subject complaint under Sections 499/500/504/506 IPC.
7. Upon filing of complaint instant, cognizance of the offences as disclosed in the complaint was taken, and the complainant was given an opportunity to lead pre-summoning evidence. PSE was duly recorded. Thereafter, vide order dated 01.09.2018, the accused was summoned to face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 500/504/506 IPC.
8. The accused duly entered appearance and was supplied with a copy of the complaint. Thereafter, submissions of both the parties were heard on M/s LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Manish Yadav CT Case No. 8463/2018, PS: Saket Page 5 of 20 the point of notice in terms of Section 251 CrPC. Vide order dated 10.04.2019, it was held by this Court that the accused has prima facie committed the offence punishable under Sections 499/500 IPC, but not the offences punishable under Sections 504 or 506 IPC. In terms of Section 251 CrPC, formal notice for the said offence was served upon the accused vide order dated 15.12.2023. Accused pleaded not guilty thereto, and claimed trial. Proceedings accordingly progressed to the stage of recording of the complainant's evidence.
9. At the stage of complainant's evidence, the complainant examined its Authorised Representative (AR) as CW1. In his testimony, CW1 deposed on the lines of the averments made in the complaint. His testimony is not being reproduced herein for the sake of brevity. He also placed reliance upon the following documents:
Sl. No. Document Ex
1 Attorney dated 07.06.2018 CW1/A (OSR)
2 General agreement with the accused company CW1/B
i.e. Garrison Tools Pvt. Ltd which was
executed on 12.07.2003
3 Termination of the agreement (Mark CW1/B) CW1/C
by the complainant company vide a
termination letter dated 25.05.2018
4 Copy of the derogatory remarks, and CW1/D to CW1/F
certificate u/s 65B filed by CW1 & CW1/G
5 Copy of the Resolution issued by the CW1/H
complainant company in favour of CW1 to
pursue the instant case
6 Legal notice dated 11.06.2018 issued by CW1 CW1/I (OSR)
M/s LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Manish Yadav CT Case No. 8463/2018, PS: Saket Page 6 of 20 to the accused, along with postal receipt 7 Petition u/s 9 of the Arbitration Act filed by the CW1/J complainant company before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi 8 Certified true copy of the board resolution CW1/K passed on meeting held on 20.12.2023 9 Power of attorney dated 07.12.2023 executed CW1/L (OSR) in favour of CW1 10 Certified copy of the petition filed by the CW1/M (Colly) complainant company u/s 9 of the Arbitration Act before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi 11 Certified copy of the petition filed by the CW1/N (Colly) accused u/s 482 CrPC before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi 12 Certified copy of Certificate of Incorporation CW1/O CW1 was duly cross-examined by ld. counsel for the accused and was discharged thereafter.
10. No other witnesses were examined by the complainant, and consequently, the complainant's evidence (CE) was closed.
11. In order to afford the accused an opportunity to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against him during trial, his statement was recorded under Section 313 CrPC. At this stage, the accused admitted that he had indeed published the impugned posts on his social media website. He further stated that he had no intention whatsoever to defame the complainant and had merely expressed his opinion, consequent to the illegal termination of contract in favour of Garrison Tools Part Ltd. by the complainant company. He further stated that, pursuant to the M/s LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Manish Yadav CT Case No. 8463/2018, PS: Saket Page 7 of 20 directions of the learned Arbitrator, he had deleted the said posts within a week of their publication. Upon a specific query by the Court, the accused stated that he did not wish to lead any defence evidence in the affirmative. Accordingly, defence evidence (DE) was closed, and the matter was fixed for final arguments.
12. Final arguments heard. Entire record of the case, including the written submissions and case law filed on behalf of both the parties perused. Considered.
12.1 Ld. counsel for the complainant relied upon the following case law:
i) Jeffrey J. Diermeier & Anr. vs. State of West Bengal & Anr., (2010) 6 SCC 243;
ii) Arvind Kejriwal vs. State & Anr., Crl. MC 6347/2019, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi;
iii) Lakshmi Murdeshwar Puri vs. Saket Gokhale & Ors., CS (OS) 300/2021, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi;
iv) S.Ve. Shekher Vs. Al. Gopalsamy & Ors., 2023 (4) CTC 541;
v) Subramanian Swamy vs. UOI & Ors., AIR 2016 SC 2728;
vi) John Thomas vs. K. Jagadeesan, SLP (Crl.) 1875/2001, Hon'ble Apex Court;
vii) Emperor vs. Alex Pimento, 1920 (22) BOMLR 1224;
viii) Rohini Singh & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., 2018(1)C Crimes 522 (Guj.);
ix) Chaman Lal vs. State of Punjab, (1970) 1 SCC 590;
x) Shahed Kamal & Ors. vs. A. Surti Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2024:BHC-AS:22806-D; and
xi) M.A. Rumugam vs. Kittu, (2009) 1 SCC 101.
12.2 Ld. counsel for the accused relied upon the following case law:
M/s LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Manish Yadav CT Case No. 8463/2018, PS: Saket Page 8 of 20
i) Teekaram Sahu vs. Yogeshwar & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine Chh 93;
ii) Shahed Kamal & Ors. vs. A. Surti Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 811;
iii) Kishore Balkrishna Nand vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., (2023) 8 SCC 358;
iv) Anita Thakur & Ors. vs. Govt. of J&K & Ors., (2016) 15 SCC 525;
v) Javed Ahmad Hajam vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., (2024) 4 SCC 156;
vi) Dr. Suman Gupta vs. Ravinder Pratap & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7813;
vii) Harbhajan Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr., AIR 1966 SC 97; and
viii) Subramanian Swamy vs. UOI & Ors., (2016) 7 SCC 221.
13. The accused stands charged with the commission of the offence of defamation. Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code defines the said offence. It provides that whoever 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, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or visible representations, commits defamation.
14. In Subramanian Swamy vs Union of India, Min. of Law, Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 184/2014, DOD 13.05.2016, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:
"165. For the aforesaid purpose, it is imperative to analyse in detail what constitutes the offence of "defamation" as provided under Section 499 of IPC. To constitute the offence, there has to be imputation and it must have 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 M/s LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Manish Yadav CT Case No. 8463/2018, PS: Saket Page 9 of 20 imputation made by him would harm the reputation of the complainant. The criminal offence emphasizes on the intention or harm. Section 44 of IPC defines "injury". It denotes any harm whatever illegally caused to any person, in body, mind, reputation or property. 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 and another v. State of West Bengal and another, a two-Judge Bench deliberated on the aspect as to what constitutes defamation under Section 499 of 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. It would be sufficient to show that the accused intended or knew or had reason to believe that the imputation made by him would harm the reputation of the complainant, irrespective of whether the complainant actually suffered directly or indirectly from the imputation alleged."
15. Facts of the case shall be analyzed on the anvil of legal position discussed above. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision reveals that intention to harm the reputation is not an indispensable ingredient of the offence punishable u/s 500 IPC. An imputation may still constitute defamation if the person making it either knows or has reason to believe that it will be harmful to the reputation of the person against whom it is made [Ref: Emperor vs. Alex Pimento (Supra)]. Further, such defamatory imputation may be conveyed either through words spoken or written or even by gestures or visible representations. The sine qua non of the offence of defamation is publication, meaning thereby that the imputation must be communicated to a third person through words (spoken or written), signs, or visible representations. Since the crux of the offence lies in the making of an imputation that tends to lower the moral or intellectual character of a person in the estimation of others, it is essential that such imputation comes to the knowledge of persons other than the one defamed. The imputation M/s LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Manish Yadav CT Case No. 8463/2018, PS: Saket Page 10 of 20 must also be of such a nature that the third party, before whom it is made, understands it to be referring to the complainant. It is pertinent to note that certain exceptions are also recognised to the offence of defamation. The ten exceptions appended to Section 499 IPC provide that where a case falls within any of those exceptions, a statement, even if apparently defamatory, shall not constitute an offence.
16. In Shahed Kamal & Ors. vs. M/s A. Surti Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., Crl. Appeal No. 2033/2025, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"13. Before we proceed further, it is appropriate to notice the recent pronouncement of this Court in Iveco Magirus Brandschutztechnik GMBH v. Nirmal Kishore Bhartiya and Anr., (2024) 2 SCC 86 wherein this Court, while examining the question whether the exceptions to Section 499 could be considered at the stage of issue of process under Section 204 CrPC and equally for the High Court examining a petition to quash under Section 482, had the following to say:-
"60. What the law imposes on the Magistrate as a requirement is that he is bound to consider only such of the materials that are brought before him in terms of Sections 200 and 202 as well as any applicable provision of a statute, and what is imposed as a restriction by law on him is that he is precluded from considering any material not brought on the record in a manner permitted by the legal process. As a logical corollary to the above proposition, what follows is that the Magistrate while deciding whether to issue process is entitled to form a view looking into the materials before him. If, however, such materials themselves disclose a complete defence under any of the Exceptions, nothing prevents the Magistrate upon application of judicial mind to accord the benefit of such Exception to prevent a frivolous complaint from triggering an unnecessary trial.
62. In the context of a complaint of defamation, at the stage the Magistrate proceeds to issue process, he has to form his opinion based on the allegations in the complaint and other material (obtained through the process referred to in Section 200/Section 202) as to whether "sufficient ground for proceeding" exists as distinguished from "sufficient ground M/s LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Manish Yadav CT Case No. 8463/2018, PS: Saket Page 11 of 20 for conviction", which has to be left for determination at the trial and not at the stage when process is issued. Although there is nothing in the law which in express terms mandates the Magistrate to consider whether any of the Exceptions to Section 499 IPC is attracted, there is no bar either. After all, what is "excepted" cannot amount to defamation on the very terms of the provision. We do realise that more often than not, it would be difficult to form an opinion that an Exception is attracted at that juncture because neither a complaint for defamation (which is not a regular phenomenon in the criminal courts) is likely to be drafted with contents, nor are statements likely to be made on oath and evidence adduced, giving an escape route to the accused at the threshold. However, we hasten to reiterate that it is not the law that the Magistrate is in any manner precluded from considering if at all any of the Exceptions is attracted in a given case; the Magistrate is under no fetter from so considering, more so because being someone who is legally trained, it is expected that while issuing process he would have a clear idea of what constitutes defamation. If, in the unlikely event, the contents of the complaint and the supporting statements on oath as well as reports of investigation/inquiry reveal a complete defence under any of the Exceptions to Section 499 IPC, the Magistrate, upon due application of judicial mind, would be justified to dismiss the complaint on such ground and it would not amount to an act in excess of jurisdiction if such dismissal has the support of reasons.
63. Adverting to the aspect of exercise of jurisdiction by the High Courts under Section 482 CrPC, in a case where the offence of defamation is claimed by the accused to have not been committed based on any of the Exceptions and a prayer for quashing is made, law seems to be well settled that the High Courts can go no further and enlarge the scope of inquiry if the accused seeks to rely on materials which were not there before the Magistrate. This is based on the simple proposition that what the Magistrate could not do, the High Courts may not do. We may not be understood to undermine the High Courts' powers saved by Section 482 CrPC; such powers are always available to be exercised ex debito justitiae i.e. to do real and substantial justice for administration of which alone the High Courts exist. However, the tests laid down for quashing an FIR or criminal proceedings arising from a police report by the High Courts in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC not being substantially different from the tests laid down for quashing of a process issued under Section 204 read with Section 200, the High M/s LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Manish Yadav CT Case No. 8463/2018, PS: Saket Page 12 of 20 Courts on recording due satisfaction are empowered to interfere if on a reading of the complaint, the substance of statements on oath of the complainant and the witness, if any, and documentary evidence as produced, no offence is made out and that proceedings, if allowed to continue, would amount to an abuse of the legal process. This too, would be impermissible, if the justice of a given case does not overwhelmingly so demand."
The High Court has also noticed this judgment which holds that if the materials disclosed in the complaint and the documents annexed disclose a complete defence under any of the Exceptions, nothing prevents the Magistrate upon application of judicial mind to accord the benefit of such Exception to prevent a frivolous complaint from triggering an unnecessary trial. It has been further held that what is "excepted" cannot amount to defamation on the very terms of the provision and that the Magistrate is not in any manner precluded from considering if at all any of the Exceptions is attracted in a given case. It has been further held that if the Magistrate on examination notices that there is a complete defence made out under any one of the Exceptions, the Magistrate would be justified in dismissing the complaint. Equally, the High Court examining the case under Section 482, if it finds on a reading of the complaint, the substance of the statements on oath of the complainant and the witness and the documents produced by the complainant that no offence is made out and if the High Court is of the opinion that proceedings if allowed to continue would be an abuse of legal process, the High Court is empowered to interfere." (Emphasis supplied).
17. The punishment for the offence of defamation is prescribed under Section 500 IPC, which provides that whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
18. With the above legal position in mind, the factual matrix of the case shall be adverted to. In the facts of the case at hand, certain foundational facts asserted by the complainant stand admitted by the accused as well. It is seen that the post itself, containing the alleged defamatory remarks, was M/s LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Manish Yadav CT Case No. 8463/2018, PS: Saket Page 13 of 20 admittedly made by the accused on his social media pages, including Facebook and Instagram. The fact that the post was published and that it received reactions from other users is also established on record. CW1 Sh. Vinay Prakash Singh, AR of the complainant, testified in his examination- in-chief that the derogatory remarks, exhibited as Ex. CW1/D to CW1/F, were indeed posted by the accused. It was put to him in cross-examination whether he verified if the comments and likes on the said posts were made by real individuals or bots. This question itself carries an implicit admission of publication of the post by the accused. Since the posts were made from the accused's own social media accounts, if indeed the likes and comments were generated by bots and not real individuals, such evidence would lie within his special knowledge and power to produce. No such evidence has been brought on record by the defence, and bare argument of accused to this effect is set at a naught. Accordingly, it stands established that the alleged defamatory posts were published by the accused on his social-media accounts and that they received reactions from various individuals. The publication of the post before third persons stands unequivocally established.
19. What now remains to be examined is whether the said posts are defamatory in nature. At the outset, it merits mention that the present complaint has been filed by a corporation. That a corporation or company can also be defamed and may file a complaint for defamation is evident from bare perusal of Explanations to Section 499 IPC. However, unlike an individual, a corporation can bring an action for defamation only if the defamatory imputation affects its business interests. In this regard, the M/s LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Manish Yadav CT Case No. 8463/2018, PS: Saket Page 14 of 20 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs. "Maryada", The Weekly News Magazine & Ors., CS (OS) No. 1576/2008, decided on 31.10.2012, held that a corporation has equal competence to sue for damages on account of its defamation. However, it is necessary to distinguish the defamation of a corporation from the defamation of its directors or officers. The Court held that it is only when the target of the defamatory publication is the corporation itself, and the statement is calculated to injure its reputation and business interest, that an action for defamation would lie.
20. When analysed through the prism of the legal position laid down in the aforesaid judgment, it can safely be held that the post made by the accused is not defamatory in nature. The tenor of the post reads as criticism of the management policies of LG, rather than an attack on its commercial reputation. No imputation regarding the products manufactured by the complainant company, or their quality has been made. Rather, the post criticizes the policies of complainant company vis-a-vis the working conditions of the workers of vendor company. It has been admitted by the AR of the complainant in his cross-examination that there existed a vendor contract between the accused's company and the complainant company, and that the contract was terminated. From the cross-examination of CW1, the defence of the accused can be discerned that the termination of the said contract was wrongful. It is in this backdrop that the impugned post was purportedly made, wherein the accused complained that LG Electronics India Limited had placed his company and its workers in miserable conditions, causing them to suffer. The tenor of the post is not defamatory M/s LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Manish Yadav CT Case No. 8463/2018, PS: Saket Page 15 of 20 against the products of LG Electronics India Limited, but rather criticises its management and policies insofar as they allegedly affected the workers of Garrison Tools Pvt. Ltd. As such therefore, the post is not found to be defamatory within the meaning of Section 499 IPC.
21. The element of malicious intent, which is central to the offence of defamation under Section 499 IPC, is missing here in the case at hand. The post was made in the backdrop of a dispute between the accused and the complainant company regarding termination of a contractual engagement. The record itself shows that the post was a reaction born out of grievance, not a deliberate attempt to cause harm. The complainant has not shown that the termination of the contract with company of which the accused is a Director was lawful or that the grievance raised by the accused was unfounded. Without that, it cannot be said that the accused acted out of spite or ill will. What comes through instead is a person protesting what they believed to be unfair treatment. In such circumstances, the intention to harm reputation, the very core of criminal defamation, cannot be inferred.
22. The complainant, being a multinational corporation, draws its reputation from its products and its market performance. No material has been produced to show that any consumer, dealer, or associate changed their opinion of the company, or stopped buying its products, because of the post. In today's online space, where people encounter dozens of opinions, reviews, and complaints every day, one post is unlikely to make a dent in a company's goodwill. The reputation of a corporation of this scale cannot be assumed to have suffered merely because someone criticised the attitude of M/s LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Manish Yadav CT Case No. 8463/2018, PS: Saket Page 16 of 20 its management with a vendor company on social media. There is no evidence of any actual loss, and that absence goes to the root of the charge.
23. Furthermore, from the very content of the post, it is seen to be covered by the Ninth Exception to Section 499 IPC. Ld. counsel for complainant relied upon the judgments titled Jeffrey J. Diermeier & Anr. vs. State of West Bengal & Anr. [(2010) 6 SCC 243], Shahed Kamal & Ors. vs. A. Surti Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. [2024:BHC-AS:22806-D], and M.A. Rumugam vs. Kittu [(2009) 1 SCC 101] to argue that due to the failures of accused to lead evidence to demonstrate that his case falls under any of the exceptions to Section 499 IPC, whether his post is covered by any of the said exceptions cannot be considered. This argument is contrary to law. In its recent pronouncement in Shahed Kamal & Ors. vs. A. Surti Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 811, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even while issuing summons in a complaint of defamation, the Magistrate is required to apply judicial mind and consider whether the accused is entitled to the benefit of any exception to Section 499 IPC, so as to prevent frivolous complaints from triggering unnecessary trials. The Court further held that dismissal of a complaint would be justified at the initial stage itself if a complete defence is made out under any of the statutory exceptions. As such, even minus any defence evidence, Court is required to ascertain if the imputations complained of are defamatory in nature. Viewed in this light, the post in question is seen to fall under Exception 9 to Section 499 IPC, inasmuch as it contains an imputation made in good faith for the protection of the interest of the person making it i.e. the accused. Being the Director of Garrison Tools Pvt. Ltd., the accused M/s LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Manish Yadav CT Case No. 8463/2018, PS: Saket Page 17 of 20 appears to have genuinely believed that his company was wronged by the termination of its contract with LG Electronics India Limited, and that his workers were made to suffer as a result. Throughout trial, no evidence was brought by the complainant to show that the allegations made in the post were false, or that the accused lacked reasonable grounds to believe them to be true. In the absence of such evidence, the defence of the accused is clearly covered by the said exception, and the post cannot be held defamatory.
24. The case of the accused is also seen to be prima facie covered under the Eighth Exception to Section 499 IPC, inasmuch as the post contains an appeal addressed to the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India, requesting intervention in the alleged practices of LG Electronics India Limited. The accused alleged that the company had captured an unjust position in the market by dubious means, resulting in the exploitation of Indian workers. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the labour employed by both LG Electronics India Limited and Garrison Tools Pvt. Ltd. consists of Indian citizens. The complainant has not brought any evidence on record to show that its policies were not violative of the rights of such workers, as alleged by the accused. There is also nothing to show that the post was made in bad faith, or that the appeal to the Prime Minister was a mere pretext. The post, being an expression of grievance and appeal to authority for redressal, is therefore protected under Exception 8 as well. Accordingly, both on facts and in law, the impugned post cannot be held to be defamatory in nature.
25. It is also worth noticing the space in which the post appeared. Social M/s LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Manish Yadav CT Case No. 8463/2018, PS: Saket Page 18 of 20 media works differently. It is informal, immediate, and often emotional. People vent, they react, they share experiences. The tone can be exaggerated, even harsh, but that does not make it a calculated act to defame. Most readers scrolling through such platforms take posts for what they are, opinion or frustration, not statements of proven fact. Against that background, the language used here, though critical, cannot reasonably be read as intended to injure reputation in the legal sense.
26. Public criticism and commentary have always had a place in the growth of labour law and corporate responsibility. Many of these conversations began not in courts but in ordinary people's words, in protest, in resistance, in asking questions. Labour-law discourse has developed through such voices, through workers and citizens raising their concerns. The law of defamation cannot be used to silence such expression when it is made in good faith or out of a sense of injustice. The post in question fits into that space. It reads like the voice of a person who felt wronged, not of someone out to destroy another's name. Criminalising such a post would be out of step with the freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and with the spirit of democratic dialogue itself.
27. Social media is designed for exactly this kind of discourse. It allows people to express, to question, to complain, and to hold institutions accountable in their own voice. It is a participatory space, not a formal one. To punish someone merely for expressing dissatisfaction, even sharply, would mean scuttling that space and silencing legitimate voices. As long as what is said is without malice, it falls within the bounds of permissible speech. Seen in that light, the post is not defamatory. It is criticism, and M/s LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Manish Yadav CT Case No. 8463/2018, PS: Saket Page 19 of 20 criticism, even if uncomfortable, cannot invite penal consequence under Section 500 IPC.
28. In view of the overall discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the post made by the accused is not defamatory in nature, being in the nature of imputations made by him to protect his own interest, and even though it consists of criticism of the complainant company, it is not defamatory of its products and does not injure its business interest. As such, the accused stands acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 500 IPC. The file be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance with Section 437A Cr.P.C.
Digitally signedPronounced in open Court on by Medha arya
30.10.2025 in the presence Medha Date:
of accused. arya 2025.10.30
16:22:56
+0530
(Medha Arya)
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate
South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi
30.10.2025
M/s LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Manish Yadav CT Case No. 8463/2018, PS: Saket Page 20 of 20