01Facts
The Petitioner, a Director of Godfrey Philips India Ltd. (GPIL), alleged that on 30.05.2024, he was assaulted and suffered a fracture while attempting to enter a board meeting.
¶ 5He lodged a police complaint on 31.05.2024, leading to the registration of FIR No. 219/2024.
¶ 5On 01.06.2024, The Economic Times published articles regarding the incident, which included a verbatim quote from the Petitioner’s police complaint: “My mother and Mr. Bhasin orchestrated this assault and the other present board members were consenting parties to this assault”.
¶ 19-20The Respondents (Board Members) filed criminal defamation complaints under Sections 499/500 IPC, alleging this statement harmed their reputation.
¶ 6The Magistrate initially dismissed the complaints under Section 203 Cr.P.C., but the Sessions Court reversed this in revision and directed summoning of the Petitioner.
¶ 7-8The Petitioner challenged the summoning orders before the High Court.
¶ 402Issues
i.1. Whether the verbatim reproduction of a statement made in a police complaint/FIR in a news report constitutes the offense of defamation under Section 499 IPC.
¶ 15ii.2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the protection of Exception 8 to Section 499 IPC at the summoning stage.
¶ 4103Law Applied
Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), specifically Exception 8, which protects accusations made in good faith to an authorized person for lawful redressal.
¶ 41Principle from Iveco Magirus Brandschutztechnik GmbH v. Nirmal Kishore Bhartiya [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1258], establishing that a Magistrate can apply IPC Exceptions at the summoning stage if the material reveals a complete defense.
¶ 43Principle from Vijay v. Ravindra Ghisulal Gupta [2022 SCC OnLine Bom 1315] and Mahadev I. Todale v. Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd. [2017 SCC OnLine Del 9135], holding that the faithful reporting of the contents of an FIR or police complaint without embellishment does not constitute defamation.
¶ 37-38Provisions in the judgment · 22 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Indian Penal Code, 1860 11 provisions
Section 34Section 109Section 143Section 148Section 294Section 325Section 326Section 341Section 499Section 500Section 506Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 169Section 182Section 190Section 200Section 202Section 203Section 204
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 223
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 80Section 7
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Section 4
04Reasoning
The Court observed that the Respondents’ grievance was restricted to a single sentence in the news articles which was a verbatim reproduction of the Petitioner’s written complaint to the Sarita Vihar Police Station.
¶ 29, 31The Court found that the news article used double quotation marks and clearly attributed the content to the formal "complaint" rather than an independent interview statement.
¶ 30, 50The Court reasoned that since the statement was made to a lawful authority (the police) to set criminal law in motion (resulting in an FIR and charge-sheet), it was protected by Exception 8 of Section 499 IPC.
¶ 45-47The Court emphasized that allowing defamation proceedings for statements made in an FIR, which are subsequently reported by the media without distortion, would result in stifling legitimate criminal grievances and creating an unnecessary "parallel trial".
¶ 48-4905Holding
The Court held that the essential ingredients of defamation were not made out as the statement was a protected accusation made to a public authority.
¶ 50The High Court set aside the Sessions Court’s orders dated 14.08.2025 and the Magistrate’s summoning order dated 18.08.2025, effectively quashing the defamation proceedings.
¶ 51-52Original Court PDF
Samir Kumaar ModivsAtul Kumar Gupta
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
