SC quashes defamation proceedings in case filed by lawyer against newspaper owner

The complaint stated that the accused allowed a news article to be published in its daily's February 24, 2013 edition bearing a title 'Advocate ne pan masala vyavasayi par karaya jhuta mamla darj.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has quashed criminal defamation proceedings in a case filed by a lawyer against the owner of a daily, noting that the contested news article was published in good faith and in exercise of the Right of Freedom of Speech and Expression.

A bench of Justices B R Gavai and Sandeep Mehta said the order passed by the Magistrate First Class, Hoshangabad, rejecting the complainant's contentions is a well-reasoned order.

"We have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant and have gone through the material placed on record including the orders passed by the Courts below as well as the High Court.

"The news article in question was published in good faith and in exercise of the Fundamental Right of Freedom of Speech and Expression enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India," the bench said.

The top court said the view taken by the Magistrate cannot be termed illegal or unjustified, warranting interference by the High Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction.

The complaint stated that the accused, who is the registered owner of a Daily newspaper named ‘Sunday Blast’ having its registered office at Malviya Hospital, Kothi Bazar, Hoshangabad Tehsil and District Hoshangabad, allowed a news article to be published in its February 24, 2013 edition bearing a title 'Advocate ne pan masala vyavasayi par karaya jhuta mamla darj (Advocate lodges false complaint against a pan masala trader)'.

The lawyer filed the complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hoshangabad. He alleged the newspaper owner allowed the said article to be published without ascertaining facts which harmed his reputation.

The Magistrate, after considering the averments made in the complaint and the statement of witnesses examined under Sections 200 and 202 of Code of Criminal Procedure, rejected the same.

The complainant filed a revision against the order which came to be allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad. The order passed by the Magistrate was reversed.

The accused-owner then challenged the said order before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh which dismissed it. The newspaper owner then moved the Supreme Court.