Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Right to Be Considered for Promotion, Not a Right to Promotion: Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility for Retrospective Promotion    |     Inherent Power of Courts Can Recall Admission of Insufficiently Stamped Documents: Supreme Court    |     Courts Cannot Substitute Their Opinion for Security Agencies in Threat Perception Assessments: J&K High Court Directs Reassessment of Political Leader's Threat Perception    |     Service Law | Violation of Natural Justice: Discharge Without Notice or Reason: Gauhati High Court Orders Reinstatement and Regularization of Circle Organizers    |     Jharkhand High Court Quashes Family Court Order, Reaffirms Jurisdiction Based on Minor’s Ordinary Residence in Delhi    |     Ex-Serviceman Status Ceases After First Employment in Government Job: Calcutta High Court Upholds SBI’s Cancellation of Ex-Serviceman's Appointment Over False Declaration of Employment    |     Maxim Res Ipsa Loquitur Applies When State Instrumentalities Are Directly Responsible: Delhi High Court Orders MCD to Pay ₹10 Lakhs Compensation for Death    |     Wilful Avoidance of Service Must Be Established Before Passing Ex Parte Order Under Section 126(2) CrPC: Patna High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Maintenance Order    |     MP High Court Imposes Rs. 10,000 Costs for Prolonging Litigation, Upholds Eviction of Petitioners from Father's Property    |     When Detention Unnecessary Despite Serious Allegations of Fraud Bail Should be Granted: Kerala HC    |     Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Relocation Alone Cannot Justify Transfer: Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Move Case from Nellore to Delhi, Orders Fresh Probe    |     Punjab & Haryana HC Double Bench Upholds Protection for Married Partners in Live-In Relationships, Denies Same for Minors    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     Smell of Alcohol in Post-Mortem Insufficient to Establish Intoxication: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Liability of Insurance Company in Motor Accident Case    |     No Grounds for Transfer: Free Bus Fare for Women in Telangana Reduces Travel Burden: Telangana High Court Rejects Wife's Petition to Transfer Divorce Case    |     Mechanical Referrals Invalid: "Deputy Registrar Must Apply Judicial Mind: Allahabad HC Quashes Deputy Registrar's Order in Arya Pratinidhi Sabha Election Dispute    |    

Defamation Proceedings Quashed Against Journalist of Daily Ajit and Ajit Samachar

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark decision on January 4, 2024, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana set a significant precedent in a defamation trial involving a renowned journalist and Managing Editor of ‘Daily Ajit’ and ‘Ajit Samachar’. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara presided over the case, emphasizing the importance of factual basis in legal proceedings, especially in defamation cases.

The petitioner, who has been embroiled in this legal battle for over 15 years, challenged the dismissal of his criminal revision petition by the Sessions Court. The case revolved around the publication of news allegedly defaming an IPS officer, leading to a prolonged legal dispute.

In his judgment, Justice Chitkara meticulously examined the pleadings and evidence, applying judicial precedents and relevant laws. He noted, “The complaint did not disclose any offense committed by the petitioner, and there was no sufficient prima facie evidence based on which they could have been summoned.”

Highlighting the essential distinction between editorial roles, the Court pointed out that the petitioner, being the Managing Editor and not the Chief Editor, was not responsible for the content published. “The petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the first and ninth exceptions to S. 499 IPC, which makes the order of summoning bad in law,” Justice Chitkara observed, providing significant relief to the journalist.

The decision to quash the summons and all subsequent proceedings was grounded in the inherent jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC, with the Court stating that non-interference would have resulted in a miscarriage of justice. This ruling is a testament to the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the principles of justice and the importance of adhering to the strictures of legal evidence in defamation cases.

Date of Decision: 04.01.2024

Barjinder Singh Hamdard VS Param Vir Rathee, IPS

Similar News