Jai Gupta vs Sunil Kumar Roy & Anr.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
rd
% Reserved on: 03 September, 2026
th
Pronounced on: 27 October, 2026
th
Uploaded on: 28 October, 2026

# CNR No. : DLHC011020752024
+ RFA 56/2025
Jai Gupta
S/O Late Sh. Major N.N Gupta (Vsm)
R/O 231, RPS DDA Flats,
Sheikh Sarai Phase-1, New Delhi. ..... Plaintiff
Through: Ms. Arunima Gupta, Advocate.
versus
Sunil Kumar Roy
S/O Late Sh. Major N.N. Gupta (Vsm)
R/O 181, Amrapali Apartment,
56, IP Extension, Patparganj,
New Delhi. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ankur Dhall, Advocate.
CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. Regular First Appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( hereinafter referred to as „CPC‟ ) has been
filed on behalf of the Plaintiff /Plaintiff, Jai Gupta, against the Order dated
16.08.2024, whereby the Plaintiff‟s Suit bearing CS No. 91/2023 for
damages for Rs.10,00,000/- on account of Defamation, was rejected under
Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
RFA 56/2025 Page 1 of 19

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:28.10.2026
16:51:27

2. The facts in brief, as narrated in the Plaint, are that the Plaintiff
has been a practicing advocate at Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, since
September 1989 until mid-2018, and belongs to an established family of
lawyers. It was averred that both his late parents were advocates who
practised in the Supreme Court of India, Delhi High Court and the District
Courts. His elder real brother had served as a judicial officer in the Delhi
Higher Judicial Services, before retiring in 2020.
3. The Respondent was also a practising advocate at Patiala House
Courts and was known to the Plaintiff, as he occupied a neighbouring
chamber and frequently visited the Plaintiff‟s chamber, to seek legal advice
and have tea with him.
4. The Plaintiff contended that, in May 2017, the Respondent
approached him for financial assistance by way of a loan of ₹2, 00,000/. The
Respondent was allegedly facing severe financial difficulties, owing to
criminal and civil proceedings initiated by one Sh. Dinesh Verma against
him and his wife, in connection with alleged financial wrongdoing involving
₹30,00,000/-, in respect of which an FIR was registered, and a Summary
Suit was pending.
5. Considering the Defendant‟s financial difficulties, the Plaintiff
advanced a loan of ₹2, 00,000/- to him at his chamber, on 29.05.2017. The
Respondent issued a post-dated cheque dated 29.08.2017 for ₹2, 00,000/-
and assured the Plaintiff that the cheque would be honoured upon
presentation.
6. From 29.08.2017 onwards, the repeatedly requested the defendant to
repay the loan. However, the Defendant requested him not to present the
cheque, stating that he was facing financial difficulties, and assured him that
RFA 56/2025 Page 2 of 19

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:28.10.2026
16:51:27

the amount would be repaid once his financial position improved. Acting
upon these assurances, the plaintiff did not present the cheque for
encashment, during its three-month validity period.
7. On 03.03.2022, when the plaintiff visited Patiala House Courts, the
Defendant approached him and requested him to waive the outstanding loan
of ₹2, 00,000/. The Defendant asserted that, had the Plaintiff transferred his
earlier Chamber in his favour instead of surrendering it to the Bar Council,
he would have returned the loan amount. However, since the Chamber had
already been surrendered, the plaintiff was told to forget about his money.

8. The Plaintiff declined to waive the loan, explaining that the amount
had been advanced when the Defendant was facing financial difficulties and
that he himself required repayment. However, the Defendant became
aggressive and pushed the Plaintiff and obstructed his way when he
attempted to leave the Chamber. The Defendant allegedly assaulted him,
causing injuries to his face, and threatened him with dire consequences,
including grievous injuries, if he continued demanding repayment. The
Plaintiff was eventually able to leave the chamber.
9. The Plaintiff, after being assaulted, made a PCR call and was taken to
the hospital, where his medical examination recorded mild swelling on the
lower lip and nail-scratch marks below the right eye. On the same date, his
complaint regarding the alleged assault and threats, was recorded by ASI
Sunil, the Investigating Officer at Police Station Tilak Marg.
10. On 03.03.2022, the Defendant lodged a false Complaint against him
at Police Station Tilak Marg, recorded vide DD No.60A, in an attempt to
conceal the aforesaid assault and to set up a false defence that there had been
RFA 56/2025 Page 3 of 19

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:28.10.2026
16:51:27

a transaction for the sale of Chamber to the Defendant, for which he had
allegedly paid Rs.1,00,000/- in cash and issued a cheque for Rs.2,00,000/-.
11. The Plaintiff contended that the said Complaint was false, fabricated
and concocted and contained defamatory imputations, insinuations and
allegations against him. He alleged that the Defendant had defamed him by
making the aforesaid statements in the Complaint, signed by him and
submitted at Police Station Tilak Marg.
12. The Plaintiff further averred that the Defendant was aware that the
Complaint would form part of the police records and would be seen by
several persons, thereby resulting in publication of the defamatory
imputations and their possible circulation within the legal fraternity .
13. The Plaintiff further averred that the Defendant was motivated by an
intention to damage and tarnish his reputation in the eyes of others who
knew him. The Defendant had intentionally made the aforesaid imputations,
thereby causing incalculable harm and injury to the reputation of the
Plaintiff .
14. The Plaintiff also averred that he had been practising as an advocate
for more than 30 years and that the allegations had been made despite the
Defendant being well aware that there was no evidence of his involvement
with any goons or other bad elements of society. The Plaintiff alleged that
the imputations were motivated by malice and animosity and had been made
with the sole object of defaming him.
15. The Plaintiff also filed a Summary Suit under Order XXXVII of the
CPC bearing CS No. 255/2022, against the Defendant for recovery of the
loan amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- along with interest, which is pending trial.
RFA 56/2025 Page 4 of 19

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:28.10.2026
16:51:27

16. The Plaintiff thereby, stated that the Defendant had committed an
offence of Criminal Defamation, punishable under Section 499 IPC , and
claimed that he was entitled to seek pecuniary damages from the Defendant
for having publicly defamed him, for bringing disrepute to him, and for
slandering his character and reputation.
17. The Plaintiff , thus, instituted the present Suit for damages for an
amount of Rs.10,00,000/- along with interest @ 12%, from the date of
filing till the date of realisation.
18. The Defendant, in his Written Statement , raised a preliminary
objection that the Plaintiff had not approached the Court with clean hands as
the Suit was filed with an ulterior motive of harassing him. He further
contended that the Plaintiff had manipulated and concealed material facts ,
and denied having any liability towards him and that these allegations could
be exposed only during the Trial.
19. The Defendant claimed that, in the last week of May, 2017, he met
with the Plaintiff through a common friend, Mr. S.K. Mishra, and that, after
negotiations, it was agreed that the Plaintiff would sell Chamber No. 174,
Patiala House Courts to him, for a consideration of ₹12,00,000/-. He had
paid ₹1, 00,000/- in cash to the Plaintiff and handed over cheque No.
000010 dated 29.08.2017 as bayana/token money, with the balance
consideration, to be paid in due course.
20. He further stated that he was ready to pay the balance consideration
and had approached the Plaintiff on various occasions, for that purpose.
However, the Plaintiff allegedly backed out of the understanding and refused
to sell the chamber. The Defendant therefore, demanded the return of his
money, but the Plaintiff allegedly avoided him and stopped answering his
RFA 56/2025 Page 5 of 19

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:28.10.2026
16:51:27

calls. The Defendant stated that his repeated calls and messages went
unanswered.
21. The Defendant stated that, on 03.03.2022, he approached the Plaintiff
in front of Chamber Nos. 174 and 175, and demanded the return of the cash
amount and the cheque given to him in the month of May, 2017. He alleged
that, instead of responding, the Plaintiff started abusing and manhandling
him in the open area, in the presence of several advocates and threatened
him with dire consequences and further frivolous litigation. He immediately
gave a written Complaint dated 03.03.2022, bearing DD No. 60A, regarding
the incident to Police Station Tilak Marg, New Delhi.
22. The Defendant further stated that, as the police authorities had failed
to register a case against the Plaintiff , he filed an Application under Section
156(3), along with a Complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure thereof. He stated that the Plaintiff had also lodged a Complaint
bearing DD No. 63 on 03.03.2022, as a counter-blast to his Complaint.
23. The Defendant also filed a Complaint dated 15.09.2022 before the Bar
Council of India and the Bar Council of Delhi, concerning the alleged
conduct of the Plaintiff.
24. The Defendant denied having defamed or tarnished the reputation of
the Plaintiff. He contended that lodging a Complaint with a law enforcement
agency to report a grievance, did not amount to defamation and that the Suit
had been filed with the ulterior motive of extorting money from him.
25. He further stated that the Plaintiff had not identified, in the
Complaint, the Plaint or the list of witnesses, any person who had informed
him that his reputation had been lowered, to substantiate the allegation of
RFA 56/2025 Page 6 of 19

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:28.10.2026
16:51:27

defamation. The Suit was, accordingly, liable to be dismissed as being
without any merit.
26. The Plaintiff, in the Replication , reaffirmed the averments made in
the Plaint and denied the allegations made in the Written Statement.
27. The Defendant filed an Application under Order VII Rule 11 read
with Section 151 CPC, seeking rejection of the Plaint on the ground that it
did not disclose a cause of action. It was further contended that lodging a
Complaint before a law-enforcement agency, did not constitute defamation
and that the Plaintiff had failed to disclose a sufficient basis for maintaining
the Suit or to identify any witness in support of his claim.
28. In the impugned Judgment dated 16.08.2024 , the Learned District
Judge referred to a compendium of Judgments including Prof. Imtiaz Ahmad
v. Durdana Zamir , 2009 SCC OnLine Del 477; Vijay Gulati v. Radhika ,
2010 SCC OnLine Del 3514 119 DRJ 482; A. N. Shanmugam vs. G.
Saravanan , 2015 SCC OnLine Mad 728; Mahavir Singh vs. Surinder Singh ,
2010 SCC P&H 9094; K. Ramadass vs. P. Samu Pillai , 1960 SCC OnLine
Mad 121; and M /s Bapalal and Co. vs. A. R. Krishnaswami Iyer , 1940 SCC
OnLine Mad 184, to conclude that Police Complaint cannot given rise to
any cause of action for defamation .
29. It was also observed that the Plaintiff‟s entire claim for defamation
was based on a single sentence in the Complaint and that the sentence could
not be considered in isolation from the substance of the Complaint, to give
rise to a cause of action for defamation.
30. The Judgment of this Court in Rakesh Bhardwaj vs. Jai Gupta ,
CM(M)931/2018, decided on 14.08.2018, was held to be distinguishable on
the facts of the present case.
RFA 56/2025 Page 7 of 19

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:28.10.2026
16:51:27

31. Accordingly, the learned District Judge held that the Plaint did not
disclose a cause of action for defamation and rejected it under Order VII
Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC.
32. Aggrieved by the Judgment dated 16.08.2024, the Plaintiff has
preferred the present Regular First Appeal .
33. The grounds of challenge are that while passing the impugned Order,
extraneous facts, which are not mentioned in the Plaint, were taken into
consideration to reject the Suit.
34. The various judgments of different High Courts had been relied upon,
without appreciating that the facts of the said cases were not in pari
materia with the facts of the present case and were not applicable to the
facts stated in the Plaint.
35. It is further contended that the statement made in the Complaint was
false, scandalous, per se defamatory and had been made intentionally and
maliciously, without any justification and without being connected with the
other allegations contained in the Complaint.
36. It is further contended that the distinction between defamatory
allegations forming part of a police Complaint on which an FIR had been
registered and a per se defamatory imputation made in a Complaint which
was closed after inquiry and on which no FIR had been registered, was not
appreciated.
37. It is further contended that the judgment in Rakesh Bhardwaj (supra) ,
the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, which applied to the facts of the
present case, was not considered, and was erroneously distinguished on the
ground that it had not noticed the earlier decisions in Prof. Imtiaz Ahmad
(supra) and Vijay Gulati(supra) .
RFA 56/2025 Page 8 of 19

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:28.10.2026
16:51:27

38. Furthermore, the judgment in Major General M.S. Ahluwalia v. M/s
Tehelka.com , decided on 21.07.2023 in CS(OS) 622/2002, recognises the
distinction between per se defamatory words and other defamatory
statements and the principle that, where words are per se defamatory, no
further proof of actual damage is required. However, this judgment was not
appreciated.
39. It is further contended that no finding on the specific contention of the
Plaintiff that the alleged imputation was irrelevant to the subject matter of
the Complaint was made, without any supporting facts or evidence, and was
intended to harm the reputation of the Plaintiff.
40. It is further contended that Defendant had subsequently incorporated
defamatory imputation/insinuation against the Plaintiff to the effect that
“ this man is very influencing and has roots in the goons and bad elements of
the society ” in his Complaint dated 03.03.2023 made to the Police, without
there being any rhyme or reason or justification and was completely out of
context, unconnected and totally irrelevant and in isolation to the rest of the
allegations of wrong doing made in the Complaint, which was in respect of
cheating and assault by the Defendant and was also without any supporting
facts, contentions or evidence to justify making such false and defamatory
imputations against the reputation and character of the Plaintiff , to defame
and slander his reputation.
41. The imputation was per se defamatory and was legally distinguishable
from the defamatory allegations made in the Complaint. A prima facie case
was made out in the Complaint, and cause of action was disclosed.
42. Further, the Learned Trial Court erroneously observed that there was
no cause of action, to reject the Suit under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.
RFA 56/2025 Page 9 of 19

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:28.10.2026
16:51:27

43. It has also not been appreciated that, while deciding an Application
under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the averments made in the Plaint were
required to be considered as a whole and that the Plaint could not have been
rejected without examining whether the allegations stated therein, disclosed
a cause of action.
44. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned Judgment be set aside and
the Plaint be restored .
45. Plaintiff, in support of his assertions, has filed Written Submissions,
wherein he has essentially reiterated the grounds of Appeal.

46. Reliance is placed on H. S. Deekshit & Ors. vs. Metropoli Overseas
Limited & Ors ., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2024, Pramod Kumar Jain vs. Satish
Jain and Ors. CS(OS) 182/2017 decided on 03.08.2023, wherein it has been
reiterated that only the contents of the Complaint are to be considered while
deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.
47. The Plaintiff has also relied upon Ram Singh Batra vs. Sharan Premi ,
133 (2006) DLT 126, wherein it was held that a statement published, unless
it is defamatory per se , is actionable on proof that it was false and
defamatory. It was therefore submitted that the Order rejecting the
Complaint is not sustainable in the eyes of law; it is perverse and liable to
be set aside.
48. Learned counsel for the Respondent contended that the Plaintiff‟s
entire case rested on a solitary statement made in the Complaint, on which
no action had been taken. It was submitted that the statement, when read in
the context of the Complaint as a whole, could not be regarded as
defamatory, merely because the Plaintiff was alleged to have connections
with goons. It was further contended that there is no evidence that there was
RFA 56/2025 Page 10 of 19

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:28.10.2026
16:51:27

any publication of this statement, which has resulted in lowering the
reputation of the Plaintiff.
49. It is therefore, submitted that the suit has been rightly rejected under
Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.
Submissions heard and the record perused .
50. To understand the controversy in the present case and the import of
the statement alleged to be defamatory, it is necessary to consider the
background to the incident and the lodging of the Complaint.

51. According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant had taken a loan of Rs.
2,00,000/- and issued a cheque on 29.08.2017, with an assurance that it
would be honored upon presentation, but subsequently failed to repay the
loan amount. The Plaintiff alleged that he confronted the Respondent on
03.03.2022, to seek repayment.
52. The Respondent, on the other hand, claimed that the parties had
agreed to the sale of the chamber and that he had paid ₹3,00,000/-
( ₹1,00,000/- in cash and ₹2,00,000/- by cheque) as part of the consideration.
However, Plaintiff instead surrendered the Chamber to the Bar Council,
thereby, defeating the understanding inter se between the parties.
53. An altercation took place between the parties, on 03.03.2022. The
Plaintiff alleged that he had been assaulted, whereas the Respondent claimed
that the Plaintiff had abused and manhandled him. The Respondent lodged a
Complaint bearing DD No. 60A, at Police Station Tilak Marg on the same
date. Thereafter, Plaintiff also made a Complaint vide DD No. 63, on the
same day.
RFA 56/2025 Page 11 of 19

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:28.10.2026
16:51:27

54. This Complaint of the respondent contained a sentence, which was
claimed by the Plaintiff, to be per se defamatory. It would be pertinent to
reproduce the entire Complaint, which reads as under:
“Sub.: - Complaint against Mr. Jai Gupta for assaulting &
threatening me to kill me.
Sir,
Mr. Jai Gupta is known to me for last 2017 in the
year 2017 he got ready to transfer his Chamber No. 174
to me & for which I have paid him Rs.100000/- &
remaining amount was to be paid on later stage but
surprisingly the chamber was not transferred to me but
same was sold to some one else from that I am day I am
asking for my money but all is vain.
Today Jai Gupta when he met him at Chamber No.
177 & demanded my payment at about 5 PM. I was
beaten up & threatened by Mr. Jai & said “Agar Dubara
Paise Maange to jaan se maar dunga”. People gathered
there & somehow I saved myself that this man is very
influencing & have roots in the goons & bad elements
of the society & I have fear & threat to my life . I have
been hit on my abdominal part & have pain.
It is therefore prayed kindly take necessary action &
book the culprit & register the FIR. ”
55. The Plaintiff‟s claim is based on the aforesaid one highlighted
sentence in the Complaint. The question is whether the impugned words,
when read in the context of the Complaint as a whole, is per se defamatory.
RFA 56/2025 Page 12 of 19

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:28.10.2026
16:51:27

56. The term „defamation‟ has been defined in the case of Salmond &
th
Heuston in Law of Torts, 20 Edn. 7, which defines a defamatory statement
as under:
“ A defamatory statement is one which has a
tendency to injure the reputation of the person to whom it
refers; which tends to lower him in the estimation of right
thinking members of society generally and in particular
to cause him to be regarded with feelings of hatred,
contempt, ridicule, fear, dislike, or disesteem …”
57. Defamation has been defined as a “false statement about a man to his
discredit” by Justice Cave in Scott vs. Sampson, [L.R.] 8 Q.B.D. 491 and
followed by Indian Courts in Bata India Ltd. vs. A.M. Turaz , 2012 SCC
OnLineDel 5387: (2013) 53 PTC 586 and Pandey Surendra Nath Sinha vs.
Bageshwari Pd., 1960 SCC OnLine Pat 116: AIR 1961 Pat 164 .
58. The essential elements for a civil defamation may be stated thus:
(i) that there was a statement made which was defamatory ;
(ii) that such statement was published;
(iii) such imputation was made with the intention or
knowledge or having reason to believe that it will harm the
reputation of the person about whom it is made;
(iv) that such statement, so published , has a tendency to
lower the reputation in the eyes of the members of the
society.
59. First and foremost, it is relevant to observe that the impugned
statement was made in a Complaint submitted by the Respondent to the
Police concerning the incident, in which he set out his version of the events.
The Plaintiff also lodged a counter-complaint concerning the same incident,
setting out his own version.
RFA 56/2025 Page 13 of 19

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:28.10.2026
16:51:27

60. The most pertinent question, which arises, is whether the Complaint
made to the Police for redress of grievance, attracts protection from a civil
action for defamation . This aspect has been considered in a compendium of
Judgments.
61. In Watson vs. M‟Ewan , (1905) A.C. 480, Lord Halsbury observed that
the public policy underlying the protection of witnesses in the administration
of justice extends to preliminary steps forming part of the administration of
justice, including the preliminary examination of witnesses to ascertain what
they can prove. Referring to the aforesaid principle, Coutts Trotter, C.J.,
held that statements made by a potential witness as a preliminary to entering
the witness box, are equally privileged as statements made by the witness
while actually giving evidence in Court.
62. In M/s Bapalal and Co. ( supra ), the Madras High Court considered a
case wherein the Plaintiff had sent a letter to the Inspector of Police, which
the Respondent alleged was defamatory as it amounted to an accusation of
criminal breach of trust. The Court held that a complaint made to a Police
officer is, by its very nature, an absolutely privileged statement.
63. Similarly, in K. Ramadass ( supra ), the Madras High Court considered
a case where the Plaintiff lodged a complaint directly with the Police
expressing suspicion that the Respondent might have been responsible for a
theft. The Respondent instituted a suit for damages for defamation on the
basis of the complaint. Following M/S Bapalal and Co. (supra) , the Court
held that the complaint was absolutely privileged, as the complainant might
subsequently be required to substantiate its contents on oath. Accordingly,
the Suit for defamation was dismissed.
RFA 56/2025 Page 14 of 19

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:28.10.2026
16:51:27

64. In Pedda Sanjivi Reddy vs. Kondasari Koneri Reddi, AIR 1926 Mad
521, the Court considered a Petition presented to a Magistrate seeking action
under Section 107 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1898, and a statement
subsequently made to the Police during an inquiry referred by the
Magistrate. The Court held that the petition to the Magistrate was absolutely
privileged and that the statement made to the Police during the resulting
inquiry, intended to be repeated on oath before the Magistrate, was
protected.

65. Likewise, in Golap Jan vs. Bholanath Khettry , (1911) ILR 38 Cal
880, a complaint made to a Magistrate alleging criminal breach of trust was
held to be absolutely privileged notwithstanding that the complaint was
dismissed under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
66. Similar observations were made in Madhab Chandra Ghosh vs.
Nirode Chandra Ghosh , ILR (1939) 1 Cal 574, wherein it was held that a
report to the Police alleging the commission of a crime and evidence given
in Court in support of the accusation were absolutely privileged.
67. In Majju v. Lachman Prasad , (1924) ILR 46 All 671 (FB), a
distinction was drawn between a complaint to the Police which led to
judicial proceedings and one which did not. The complaint, which did not
lead to judicial proceedings, was held not to be privileged.
68. In Prof. Imtiaz ( supra ), it was observed that when a person makes a
complaint against another before the lawful authorities, the same cannot be
considered as publicising or publicly making defamatory averments against
such person. It was further observed that if a prosecution is initiated based
on such averments and the person is acquitted upon a finding that the
complaint was false, a cause of action may arise against the complainant for
RFA 56/2025 Page 15 of 19

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:28.10.2026
16:51:27

false prosecution or for damages on other grounds. Until a competent Court
holds the complaint to be false, no cause of action arises. The Court further
observed that approaching a competent authority seeking protection against
interference in one's family affairs does not, by itself, amount to a
defamatory imputation per se .
69. Similarly, in Bira Garari vs. Dulhin Somaria , AIR 1962 Pat 229, the
Division Bench held that the information given to the Police regarding the
commission of a cognizable offence, with the object of setting the criminal
law in motion, was absolutely privileged, being a necessary step preliminary
to judicial proceedings. It was further held that such privilege would not
depend upon whether judicial proceedings actually commenced or whether
the information was subsequently found to be false or actuated by malice.
The Court observed that the remedy, where the requisite ingredients were
established, could lie in proceedings for malicious prosecution or under the
relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code.
70. Similarly, in the case of Mahavir Singh ( supra ), the Court held that
merely lodging an FIR, even if it contains false imputations, does not
amount to defaming the person against whom the FIR is lodged. The Court
held that there must be publication to maintain a suit for damages.
71. In the case of A.N. Shanmugam vs. G. Saravanan , AIR 2015 (NOC) 670
(Mad.), the Court held that lodging a complaint with the Police could not be
considered to be publication of a defamatory statement. The Court further
observed that where an imputation is made in a complaint to a law-enforcement
agency with the belief that the agency would take criminal action against the
person against whom the imputation is made, the same would act outside the
scope of defamation.
RFA 56/2025 Page 16 of 19

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:28.10.2026
16:51:27

72. In the case of Rakesh Bhardwaj ( supra ), the Suit of Defamation was
based on a Complaint to the Police and was held to be maintainable.
However, a contrary view has been taken by this Court in the case of Vijay
Gulati ( supra ) and Bira Garari ( supra ) as discussed above.
73. The aforesaid judgments indicate that mere filing of a complaint with
the Police does not, by itself, constitute defamation. The nature and context
of the alleged imputation, the question of publication, and the applicability
of privilege must also be considered.

74. Even on merits, the sole statement on which the Plaintiff has relied
has been made in the context of the Defendant fearing for his life and
apprehension of a threat from the Plaintiff. When read in that context, the
statement cannot be considered defamatory per se.
75. Therefore, the learned District Judge has rightly held that the isolated
statement on which the Plaintiff has relied, does not amount to defamation.
76. Further, as held in Mahavir Singh ( supra ); Prof. Imtiaz Ahmad
( supra ) and A.N.Shamnugam ( supra ), publication is an essential
ingredient for an action for defamation.
77. In the present case, it is the averments of the Plaintiff himself, that an
altercation with the defendant, resulted in the Complaint by the defendant
which contained one defamatory sentence, namely, that this man is very
influencing & have roots in the goons & bad elements of the society & I
have fear & threat to my life .
78. It is clearly evident from the context in which the statement was made
that, allegedly, the Plaintiff had extended threats to kill the Defendant, who
said, „ agar dobara paise mange to jaan se maar dunga ‟. He further stated
that people had gathered, and he somehow managed to save himself, and he
RFA 56/2025 Page 17 of 19

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:28.10.2026
16:51:27

actually got scared because the Defendant believed that he was influential
and had connections with the goons. The alleged statement of being
connected to goons, was made in the context of having a threat to his life
from the Plaintiff. It cannot be isolated from its context, to claim that it was
per se defamatory.
79. Even when considered in the light of the definition of „ defamation‟ , it
must have a tendency to injure the reputation of the person to whom it refers
and lower the estimation of the right-thinking members of society. This
single Statement, made in the Complaint, per se does not fit into the
definition of „defamation‟ or cannot be termed to be one, which results in
loss of reputation, in the eyes of the society.
80. Moreover, |this statement in the Complaint cannot be termed as
publication. Further, there is not a single averment in the Plaint to show that
there were other people who heard this particular statement or that the
estimation of the Plaintiff was lowered in their eyes. No public person has
been named, who witnessed the incident and in whose estimation the
reputation of the plaintiff, was lowered.
81. Moreover, there is nothing to show that there was any harm caused to
the reputation of the Plaintiff. It is evident that this statement had been
made by him in good faith , to protect his own life from the perceived threat
from the Plaintiff and not with an intent to harm the reputation of the
Plaintiff .
82. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is evident that the learned
District Judge has rightly rejected the Plaint, as not disclosing any cause of
action.
RFA 56/2025 Page 18 of 19

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:28.10.2026
16:51:27

83. There is no merit in the Appeal, which is hereby, dismissed. The
pending Applications are disposed of accordingly.

(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 27, 2026/RS/ R
RFA 56/2025 Page 19 of 19

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:28.10.2026
16:51:27