Court finds lack of evidence to support defamation claims, highlighting procedural lapses in summoning process.
In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court has quashed the defamation proceedings against Sanjay Dixit, a former Indian Administrative Services officer and founder of the Jaipur Dialogues Forum. The proceedings, initiated by a complaint from social activist Syed Rizwan Ahmad, accused Dixit of defaming him through various online platforms, including Twitter and YouTube.
Justice Brij Raj Singh, presiding over the case, highlighted crucial lapses in the procedural requirements under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The court observed that the Magistrate issued the summons without conducting a necessary inquiry or examining witnesses to verify the truth of the allegations, especially as the accused resided outside the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. This oversight rendered the summoning order unsustainable.
The complaint against Dixit arose from alleged defamatory statements made in a tweet and a YouTube video, where Dixit was accused of referring to Ahmad with derogatory terms and questioning his character. However, the court found that the complaint lacked essential ingredients required to establish defamation under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Specifically, the complainant failed to provide witness testimonies or evidence demonstrating that the alleged imputations had lowered his reputation in the estimation of others.
The judgment emphasized that mere allegations without corroborative evidence are insufficient to constitute defamation. The court also noted that the complainant did not produce any witnesses to substantiate his claims, which is a statutory requirement under Explanation 4 of Section 499 IPC.
The High Court's decision underscores the importance of adhering to procedural mandates in defamation cases, particularly the need for a prima facie establishment of reputational harm through evidence and witness testimonies. The ruling also reiterates the judicial expectation that complaints should clearly demonstrate how the alleged defamatory statements have impacted the complainant's reputation among the public.
The court's judgment brings relief to Sanjay Dixit, affirming his stance that the allegations were baseless and part of a broader pattern of unfounded claims. The decision also serves as a reminder of the procedural rigor required in criminal defamation cases and the protection of individuals against unwarranted legal action.
Bottom Line:
Defamation - Essential ingredients under Section 499 IPC and Explanation 4 require that imputation must lower the reputation of the complainant in the estimation of others, supported by evidence or witnesses, which was absent in this case.
Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 499, Section 500; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 202, Section 204
Sanjay Dixit v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(Lucknow) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2839401
