Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court

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

Latest Legal News