FIR for Defamation is Not Maintainable for Non-Cognizable Offences Under Sections 500 and 501 IPC

In brief

The question

1. Whether the mere act of forwarding a newspaper cutting on WhatsApp constitutes "forgery" under Section 469 of the IPC in the absence of evidence of fabrication?

The court held

The court held that since the ingredients of forgery were absent and the defamation proceedings were procedurally flawed as an FIR, continuing the prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

It also directed

The court allowed the petition and quashed FIR CR No. I-11191041211787 of 2021 and all consequential proceedings against the petitioner. Rule was made absolute.

01Facts

The petitioner sought to quash FIR No. I-11191041211787 of 2021 filed by Respondent No. 2.

p. 1

The complainant alleged that the petitioner and others conspired to circulate a fake newspaper cutting from "Young Leader, Ahmedabad" via WhatsApp with the intent to defame him and the Bahujan Samaj Party.

p. 2

The specific role attributed to the petitioner was forwarding the photograph of the newspaper cutting to a third party (co-accused Nishyal Sangani), who then forwarded it to the complainant.

p. 3

A coordinate bench had already quashed the FIR against the co-accused who received the image from the petitioner.

p. 4

02Issues

i.1. Whether the mere act of forwarding a newspaper cutting on WhatsApp constitutes "forgery" under Section 469 of the IPC in the absence of evidence of fabrication?

pp. 3-4

ii.2. Whether an FIR is maintainable for offences under Sections 500 and 501 of the IPC, given their classification as non-cognizable?

p. 4

iii.3. Whether the continuation of proceedings against the petitioner amounts to an abuse of the process of law under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.?

p. 7

03Law Applied

The court applied Section 469 of the IPC, which requires the forgery of a document with the intent to harm reputation.

p. 3

Sections 500 and 501 of the IPC regarding defamation, noting that under Section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C., such non-cognizable offences require a private complaint before a Magistrate rather than an FIR.

p. 4

Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and the landmark criteria for quashing established in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, specifically where allegations, even if taken at face value, do not constitute an offence or are maliciously instituted.

pp. 5-6

Provisions in the judgment · 8 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 2 Section 155 Section 156 Section 482

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 114 Section 469 Section 500 Section 501

04Reasoning

The court found that the FIR and chargesheet were "conspicuously silent" regarding any evidence that the petitioner forged the newspaper item.

p. 3

To attract Section 469, a person must first forge a document; the record showed only the act of "forwarding" a pre-existing image.

p. 4

Regarding the defamation charges (Sec. 500, 501), the court held that an FIR is legally impermissible for non-cognizable offences.

p. 4

Furthermore, the court noted that the actual publisher/editor of the allegedly fake news was not made an accused. Since the allegations, even if accepted, did not prima facie disclose a cognizable offence or prove harming of reputation, the court determined the case fell under the Bhajan Lal parameters (categories 5 and 7).

p. 7

05Holding

p. 7

The court allowed the petition and quashed FIR CR No. I-11191041211787 of 2021 and all consequential proceedings against the petitioner. Rule was made absolute.

p. 7

LawLens.Gujarat High Court

Original Court PDF