J&K High Court quashes defamation complaint

Bench from Justice Javed Iqbal Wani added that the filing of the contested complaint constitutes an abuse of the judicial process and undermines the integrity of the legal system. He further noted that such behavior not only burdens the judiciary with unnecessary litigation, but also distracts from the core issues that truly require litigation.

Background:

The dispute between complainant Kuldeep Raj Dubey and respondent Puneet Sharma arose in 2018 when Kuldeep Raj filed a complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, asking the police to take action against Sharma for offenses under Section 447, 427, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the complaint, the police registered an FIR against Puneet Sharma on April 11, 2018. Sharma challenged the FIR, which the High Court quashed in February 2023, finding the allegations baseless.

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

Kuldeep has filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the defamation complaint and the order dated April 20, 2023. He submitted that the complaint was barred by limitation under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the three-year period for filing the complaint had expired. He also argued that the police were simply performing their duties and their actions did not amount to defamation.

Respondent Puneet opposed the petition justifying the delay in filing the defamation complaint by invoking Sections 470 and 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He submitted that the period spent challenging the FIR should be excluded from the limitation period and that the interest of justice requires initiation of criminal proceedings on the complaint.

Court observations:

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

The court emphasized that it was not defamation that the police carried out their duties in public view. It said:

“…the police were simply acting in the performance of their official duties in registering the said FIR, which is standard procedure in any investigation. The fact that the registration of the said FIR came to the knowledge of the local people during the search is a natural consequence of the activity of law enforcement agencies and its presence in a residential area cannot in itself be construed as defamatory conduct as alleged by the respondent herein.”

The court also discussed how the defendant relied on the Supreme Court’s 2016 decision in the case. Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India and clarified that the police cannot register an FIR for defamation. Therefore, Puneet Sharma’s claim that he initially approached the police to file a defamation case was baseless.

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

On the issue of limitation of actions, the court referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Surinder Mohan Vikal vs Asharaj Lal Chopra (1978)which clarified that the statute of limitations begins on the date the alleged offense was committed. Since Puneet Sharma’s complaint was filed five years after the registration of the FIR, it was held to be barred by the statute of limitations. The court noted “An appeal to Article 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation at this stage is unacceptable, since the defendant did not obtain an extension of the statute of limitations when filing a complaint.”

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

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

In conclusion, the court vacated the defamation complaint along with the jurisdiction order, declaring that the litigation should be dismissed and that if the defendant had failed to appreciate the statute of limitations, the courts could not consider the issue now.

Case Name: Kuldeep Raj Dubey v Punit Sharma

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 293

Click here to read/download solution