[ad_1]
Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Sri Anoop Bajaj vs Sri Jayanna on 9 April, 2025
Author: Prashant Kumar Mishra
Bench: Prashant Kumar Mishra
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.6259 of 2023)
SRI ANOOP BAJAJ APPELLANT
VERSUS
SRI JAYANNA RESPONDENT
O R D E R
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Leave granted.
3. The present appeal is filed against the impugned order
dated 16.02.2023 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at
Bengaluru in Criminal Petition No.6639 of 2022, dismissing the
petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (for short, the “Cr.P.C.”) for quashing of the
complaint in C.C. No.11057 of 2015, registered against the
appellant under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (for
short, the “IPC”).
4.
Signature Not Verified
The respondent-complainant had filed the criminal case
Digitally signed by
SAPNA BISHT
against the appellant alleging defamation on the ground that
Date: 2025.04.16
17:47:39 IST
Reason:
certain allegations and caricature images were made showing
him in poor light with insinuations which, according to him,
2were distributed to the Members of the Bowring Institute.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
complaint is totally mala fide and an abuse of the process of
the Court. It was submitted that the respondent had several
charges against him which led to his expulsion from the
Institute, which has attained finality. Thus, it was contended
that he was not even the target of such publication for the
reason that it was meant for the existing Members and not for
him. It was portrayed as to how other Members were also in
connivance with the respondent who on being discredited, led
to his removal from the Institute and the prime person with
whom he is said to have colluded, i.e., Mr. Pradeep Urs, has
also been expelled and the same has also attained finality.
Learned counsel has taken us through the so-called
objectionable publication with the caricature images showing
various persons, including the complainant-respondent. It was
submitted that a purely private publication for distribution
to the Members of the Bowring Institute for the purposes of
trying to persuade them not to support people connected with
the respondent and for the welfare of the Institute, cannot be
construed to be defamatory as it would amount to stifling his
right to express his views with regard to any Member of the
Institute among the Members themselves. Learned counsel
further contended that the thrust of the publication was
3
against Mr. Pradeep Urs and not the respondent.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the
appellant has exceeded his right to free speech and expression
by depicting him in a negative manner with false insinuations.
It was submitted that besides harsh words being used, he was
depicted as a villain which is basically what defamation is
all about. He again read the contents of the publication by
emphasizing on the so-called objectionable content, both in
the cartoons as well as in the writings.
7. Having considered the matter, the Court would first
broadly indicate the contours of defamation. Though the right
of a citizen to freedom of speech and expression is protected
under the Constitution of India, but definitely, it has to be
within certain parameters so that it does not encroach the
right of privacy or causes any damage to the reputation of any
other individual. However, the issue to be tested is to what
extent and in what context, a statement or a publication has
been made so as to bring it within the definition of Section
499 of the IPC to constitute defamation in law.
8. Having carefully gone through the so-called publication,
we do not find that there is anything which can be said to be
alarming so as to declare it to be a violation of the rights
of an individual to the extent that it would be actionable as
defamation under the Statute. There can always be personal
4
opinions of individuals with regard to the language and the
extent of any allegation made, but every such act of a person
has to be read in context to the background in which it has
been made and the purpose for which such publication/statement
has been made. In the present case, the same being limited to
the members of the Institute and being general in terms of
the allegation with use of words which may be slightly harsh
and which may have pained the respondent, would not, in our
considered opinion, constitute defamation warranting a full-
fledged trial.
9. For reasons aforesaid, the appeal is allowed. The
FIR/complaint filed against the appellant stands quashed. No
order as to costs.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
……………………………………………………………………J.
[AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH]
…………………………………………………………………………J.
[PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA]
NEW DELHI
09th APRIL, 2025
5
ITEM NO.36 COURT NO.16 SECTION II-C
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).6259/2023
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 16-02-2023
in CRLP No.6639/2022 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at
Bengaluru]
SRI ANOOP BAJAJ Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
SRI JAYANNA Respondent(s)
(IA No. 99770/2023 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No. 102625/2023 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 99774/2023 – PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES
IA No. 102623/2023 – PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)
Date : 09-04-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRAFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Gautam Narayan, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Asmita Singh, AOR
Mr. Abheet Mangleek, Adv.
Mr. Tushar Nair, Adv.
Mr. Anirudh Anand, Adv.
Mr. Punishk Handa, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Radhakrishna S. Hegde, Adv.
Mr. Rajeev Singh, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E RLeave granted.
2. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
6
3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(SAPNA BISHT) (ANJALI PANWAR)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed order is placed on the file)
[ad_2]
Source link