Patna HC Quashes Case Against Ramdev Book Publisher: Mere Follower Could Not Prosecute Defamation, And Section 295-A Sanction Was Missing

Amit Kumar, describing himself as a follower of Swami Ramdev, filed a complaint alleging that Godman to Tycoon: The Untold Story of Swami Ramdev defamed Ramdev and hurt the religious sentiments of his followers.

The Magistrate recorded the complainant’s statement and examined two witnesses, then took cognizance under Sections 500, 501 and 502 IPC and initially referred to Section 495-A IPC; by a subsequent order, that reference was corrected to Section 295-A IPC.

Juggernaut Books Pvt. Ltd. challenged the cognizance orders and consequential proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.

Section 482 CrPC permits quashing where allegations, taken at face value, disclose no offence or continuation would constitute abuse of process, consistently with the categories in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri) 426.

Section 199(1) CrPC bars cognizance of Chapter XXI IPC offences except on a complaint by a person aggrieved; under G. Narasimhan v. T.V. Chokkappa, (1972) 2 SCC 680, a member of a definite and identifiable class may complain if the imputation is directed at that class, but a follower is not aggrieved merely because a spiritual leader is allegedly defamed.

Section 196(1)(a) CrPC requires prior governmental sanction before cognizance under Section 295-A IPC; that offence requires a deliberate and malicious intention to outrage the religious feelings of a class, as explained in Ramji Lal Modi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1957 SC 620, and Mahendra Singh Dhoni v. Yerraguntla Shyamsundar, (2017) 7 SCC 760.

Section 202 CrPC requires an inquiry where the accused resides beyond the Magistrate’s territorial jurisdiction; examination of the complainant and witnesses may constitute that inquiry, subject to the principles in Vijay Dhanuka v. Najima Mamtaj, (2014) 14 SCC 638, and Abhijit Pawar v. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar, (2017) 3 SCC 528.

The complaint alleged injury to Ramdev’s reputation, not to the complainant’s, and did not identify a definite class of followers against whom the book’s imputations were directed.

The complainant’s status as a follower and the alleged hurt to followers’ sentiments therefore did not satisfy Section 199(1) CrPC.

The record disclosed no prior sanction for Section 295-A IPC, and the allegations did not identify a religious belief of a class that had been insulted or plead the deliberate and malicious intent required by that provision; allegations principally concerning Ramdev’s life and reputation were insufficient.

Although the Magistrate had examined the complainant and two witnesses, and the Court declined to find that no Section 202 inquiry had occurred, such an inquiry could not cure the absence of sanction or the complainant’s lack of standing to prosecute the defamation offences.

Finding that continuation would amount to abuse of process, the Court allowed the Section 482 petition and quashed the orders dated 7 and 9 October 2017 and all consequential proceedings against the petitioner.