J&K High Court dismisses defamation complaint

Bench with Justice Javed Iqbal Wani added that the filing of the impugned complaint constituted an abuse of process, undermining the sanctity of the legal system. In addition, it was noted that such behavior not only burdens the judicial system with unnecessary litigation, but also diverts attention from the main issues that really need to be litigated.

background:

The dispute between the petitioner, Kuldeep Raj Dhabi, and the respondent, Punit Sharma, dates back to 2018 when Kuldeep Raj filed a complaint under Section 156(3) of the CrPC seeking police action against Sharma for offenses under Sections 447, 427, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

Based on the complaint, the police registered an FIR against Punit Sharma on April 11, 2018. Sharma challenged the FIR, which was quashed by the Supreme Court in February 2023, finding the allegations baseless.

Punit subsequently filed a defamation complaint against Kuldeep Raj, alleging that the FIR caused irreparable damage to his reputation as the police action took place in broad daylight and neighbors and acquaintances witnessed the police presence at his house. Punit argued that the FIR was defamatory in nature as it was ultimately quashed.

Kuldeep filed this petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking to set aside the defamation complaint and default order dated April 20, 2023. He contended that the complaint was barred by limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C., as the period of three years for filing the complaint had lapsed. In addition, he argued that the police were only performing their duties and their actions did not amount to defamation.

Respondent Punit opposed the petition, justifying the delay in filing the defamation complaint by citing Sections 470 and 473 CrPC. He submitted that the period spent in contesting the FIR should be excluded from the limitation period and that the interests of justice demanded prosecution of the complaint.

Remarks of the court:

While deciding the case, Justice Wani delved into the provisions governing defamation under Section 499 IPC and the procedural rules for limitation under Sections 468, 469 and 470 IPC. The court reiterated that a defamation complaint under Section 500 of the IPC must be filed within three years from the date of the alleged offense.

The court emphasized that the mere fact that the police performed their duties in plain sight is not defamation. It states,

“.. the police were merely acting in the course of their official duties after the registration of the said FIR, a process, i.e. the standard procedure of any investigation. The fact that the local residents learned about the registration of the said FIR during the search is a natural consequence of the activities of law enforcement agencies, and its presence in a residential area cannot in itself be construed as defamatory conduct, as alleged by the defendant herein.”

The court also discussed the defendant’s reference to the Supreme Court’s 2016 decision in Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India and explained that the police cannot register an FIR for defamation. Thus, Punit Sharma’s claim that he initially approached the police to file a defamation case was unfounded.

“.. From a plain reading of Section 199 Cr.PC above coupled with the law laid down by the Apex Court in Subramanian above, it is clear that the police cannot register an FIR for the offense under Section 500 IPC. Therefore, the explanation given by the respondent herein for the delay in approaching the police station to take action against the petitioner herein falls to the ground.” – remarked the bench.

In the issue of the statute of limitations, the court referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Surinder Mohan Vikal v. Ascharaj Lal Chopra (1978)which clarified that the statute of limitations starts from the date of the commission of the incriminated offense. Since Punit Sharma’s complaint was filed five years after the FIR was registered, it was considered time-barred. The court noted “Recourse to Section 473 of the Criminal Code is inadmissible at this stage as the respondent did not seek extension of the limitation period at the time of filing the complaint.”

In addition, the court criticized the magistrate for issuing the process without considering the issue of limitation. Citation Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judge (1998)The court was reminded that summons in criminal cases is a serious matter and requires the use of judicial discretion.

Describing the defamation complaint as an ill-advised attempt by Punit Sharma to take revenge on Kuldeep Raj, the court said: “Such abuse of process burdens the courts with unnecessary litigation and diverts attention from the substantive issues.”

The court reached its conclusion by dismissing the defamation complaint along with the stay order, noting that the lawsuit must be dismissed and that if the defendant failed to assess the statute of limitations, the courts could not now address the issue.

Case Name: Kuldeep Raj Dhabi Vs Punit Sharma

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 293

Click here to read/download the solution