Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a private complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioner in the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, alleging commission of the offence under Section 499, punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, based on the petitioner's public statements made on 22nd March 2023, which were reported by media. The petitioner, then Deputy Chief Minister of Bihar, was accused of defaming the Gujarati people by describing them as 'thugs' in a statement related to questions about Mehul Choksi and the revocation of a Red Corner Notice. The petitioner sought transfer of the complaint from Ahmedabad to Delhi. The Supreme Court issued notice and stayed proceedings. The petitioner filed affidavits dated 18th January 2024 and 31st January 2024, unconditionally withdrawing the offending statements, explaining the context as related to swindlers like Mehul Choksi, and stating no intent to defame the Gujarati community, whom he held in esteem. The legal issue was whether the complaint should be quashed given the withdrawal and explanation, and whether the transfer petition remained relevant. The respondent's counsel did not consent to quashing but submitted that the Court may pass appropriate orders in light of the affidavits. The Court analyzed that not every defamation prosecution can be quashed merely on withdrawal of allegations, but in this case, the unconditional withdrawal, explanation of context, and lack of intent made continuing the prosecution unjust and purposeless. Relying on Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the Court exercised its extraordinary powers to do complete justice. The decision quashed the criminal case, rendering the transfer petition infructuous, and disposed of the petition.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Defamation - Quashing of Complaint - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 499, 500 - Petitioner made public statements allegedly defaming Gujarati community, respondent filed private complaint - Petitioner filed affidavits unconditionally withdrawing statements and explaining context, stating no intent to defame - Court held that in peculiar facts, with unconditional withdrawal and explanation, continuing prosecution unjust and no purpose served - Exercised powers under Article 142 of Constitution of India to quash complaint, rendering transfer petition infructuous (Paras 5-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the defamation complaint under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code should be quashed in light of the petitioner's unconditional withdrawal of the offending statements and explanation of context, and whether the transfer petition survives
Final Decision
Court quashed criminal case bearing no.CC/83849/2023 arising out of case no.CR/EN/7110/2023, titled Hareshbhai Pranshankar Mehta versus Tejaswi Lalu Prasad Yadav, pending in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad; transfer petition rendered infructuous; petition disposed of
Law Points
- Quashing of defamation complaint under Article 142 of the Constitution of India
- withdrawal of offending statements
- intent and context in defamation
- exercise of extraordinary constitutional powers for complete justice
