J&K HC Quashes Newspaper Publisher’s Defamation Case Against Retired Officer Over Information Commission Complaint, Finding No Material To Displace Good-Faith Protection or Support Wider Circulation

Kamal Saini, a retired police officer, had filed a criminal complaint and a civil suit against Pritam Singh Saini over allegedly defamatory newspaper publications.

In November 2017, Kamal submitted an application to the State Information Commission (SIC), alleging that Pritam misused the RTI Act to pressure government departments and obtain illegal gratification. Pritam later filed a complaint under Section 500 RPC, alleging that the application defamed him and that Kamal circulated copies among his relatives and friends. The Magistrate issued process on 20 January 2018. Kamal sought quashing under Section 561-A CrPC.

The earlier litigation between the parties and the alleged circulation were also considered by the Court.

Section 499 RPC defines defamation, while its Eighth Exception excludes from defamation an accusation made in good faith to a person or authority having lawful authority over the subject matter.

Section 500 RPC prescribes punishment for defamation.

Section 561-A CrPC empowers the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of a court and secure the ends of justice, and is to be exercised sparingly.

The Court relied on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, for the principle that proceedings may be quashed where allegations disclose no offence or are manifestly malicious and instituted with an ulterior motive.

It also referred to Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401, and State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha, (1982) 1 SCC 561, on the circumstances in which criminal proceedings may be quashed.

Kishore Balkrishna Nand v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 INSC 675, was cited on the Eighth Exception.

The Court treated the application to the SIC as an accusation made to a statutory authority concerning the respondent’s alleged conduct in relation to RTI proceedings.

It held that the complaint did not disclose a sustainable basis to deny the petitioner the protection of the Eighth Exception, as it contained no sufficient material indicating want of good faith.

The separate allegation that copies were circulated among the respondent’s relatives and friends was treated as a bald assertion unsupported by material.

In the context of the parties’ prior litigation, the Court considered the timing and circumstances of the complaint, along with the absence of support for the alleged circulation, to lend credence to the petitioner’s contention that the complaint was retaliatory.

It allowed the petition and quashed the criminal complaint and the Magistrate’s order dated 20 January 2018 issuing process against Kamal Saini.