UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana 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