Delhi HC Upholds Rejection Of Lawyer’s Defamation Suit Over Brother’s ‘Goons’ Remark In Police Complaint About An Alleged Death Threat

In brief

The question

Whether the respondent’s statement in a police complaint, read in the context of the complaint as a whole, was defamatory so as to disclose a cause of action

The court held

The Court held that the impugned statement, considered in context, did not amount to defamation and that the plaint disclosed no cause of action.

It also directed

It dismissed the appeal and disposed of the pending applications accordingly

01Facts

The plaintiff alleged that he had lent the respondent ₹2,00,000 and that, during a dispute over repayment, the respondent assaulted him.

pp. 2–6 · ¶ 4–10

The respondent’s account was that the parties had agreed to transfer a court chamber and that he had paid ₹3,00,000 towards the purchase price.

pp. 2–6 · ¶ 4–10

Following the altercation on 3 March 2022, the respondent lodged a police complaint containing the statement that the plaintiff was influential and had connections with “goons and bad elements of the society”

pp. 2–6, 11–12 · ¶ 4–10, 19–22, 50–54

The plaintiff sued for ₹10,00,000 in damages for defamation.

pp. 1, 7–10 · ¶ 1, 27–32

The Trial Court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, holding that it disclosed no cause of action; the plaintiff appealed under Section 96 CPC

pp. 1, 7–10 · ¶ 1, 27–32

02Issues

i.Whether the respondent’s statement in a police complaint, read in the context of the complaint as a whole, was defamatory so as to disclose a cause of action

pp. 12–13, 17–18 · ¶ 54–58, 74–79

ii.Whether the complaint’s submission to the police amounted to publication, and whether the plaint sufficiently pleaded harm to the plaintiff’s reputation

pp. 13, 17–18 · ¶ 59–73, 76–81

03Law Applied

Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, a plaint may be rejected if it does not disclose a cause of action; the appeal was brought under Section 96 CPC

p. 1 · ¶ 1, 31–32

The Court stated that civil defamation requires a defamatory statement, publication, the requisite intention or knowledge (or reason to believe) that the statement would harm reputation, and a tendency to lower the claimant’s standing in society

p. 13 · ¶ 58

A police complaint does not, merely by being lodged, automatically constitute defamation: the nature and context of the imputation, publication and any applicable privilege must be considered

pp. 13, 16–17 · ¶ 60–73

The Court discussed authorities including Bapalal and Co., K. Ramadass, Prof. Imtiaz Ahmad, Bira Garari, Mahavir Singh and A.N. Shanmugam on complaints to authorities, privilege and publication, while noting a contrary view in Rakesh Bhardwaj and other decisions

pp. 14–17 · ¶ 61–73

Provisions in the judgment · 6 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 96 Section 151

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 499

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 156 Section 200 Section 203

04Reasoning

The Court read the impugned words in the context of the respondent’s complaint, which alleged that the plaintiff had threatened to kill him and that the respondent feared for his life.

pp. 17–18 · ¶ 74–79

In that setting, the reference to the plaintiff’s alleged connections with goons conveyed the respondent’s asserted reason for fear and could not be isolated as a per se defamatory imputation

pp. 17–18 · ¶ 74–79

The plaint also did not identify anyone who heard the statement or allege facts showing that the plaintiff’s reputation had been lowered in the estimation of others.

p. 18 · ¶ 76–81

The Court therefore found no sufficient pleading of publication or reputational harm

p. 18 · ¶ 76–81