Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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.

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 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."