5 days ago
Delhi High Court Quashes Defamation Case Against Pinaki Misra
The Delhi High Court ended a criminal defamation case against lawyer Pinaki Misra.
The case began after another lawyer, Siddhartha Singh, complained about words Misra used about him.
Singh had earlier accused Misra of taking different positions on e-waste rules.
Misra denied that accusation and called Singh a “crook” and “blackmailer.”
A lower court had summoned Misra for trial in April 2019.
The High Court said Singh was the only witness who gave evidence.
It also said there was no other material showing that the words harmed Singh’s reputation in other people’s eyes.
The court therefore cancelled the summons and the related criminal proceedings.
The Delhi High Court quashed criminal defamation proceedings against senior advocate and former Biju Janata Dal Lok Sabha MP Pinaki Misra.
The case followed advocate Siddhartha Singh’s allegation that Misra used objectionable words, including “crook” and “blackmailer,” about him.
The court also cancelled a trial court’s April 2019 order summoning Misra to face trial.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said Singh, the sole witness, provided no material showing that his reputation was lowered in others’ estimation.
The court said continuing the case without sufficient foundational material would not advance justice and would subject Misra to a criminal trial.
- Who
- Senior advocate and former Biju Janata Dal Lok Sabha MP Pinaki Misra, and advocate Siddhartha Singh, who filed the complaint.
- What
- The Delhi High Court quashed criminal defamation proceedings and the trial court’s order summoning Misra.
- Where
- The Delhi High Court.
- When
- The High Court order was passed on August 25; one report said it was made public on Wednesday after being passed Tuesday.
- Why
- The court found insufficient material to prima facie show that the alleged remarks lowered Singh’s reputation in others’ estimation.
High Court’s reasoning
Complainant’s allegations
Reputational harm
High Court’s reasoning
The court said Singh’s assertion that publication of the remarks damaged his reputation was not supported by statements from other people or other material.
Complainant’s allegations
Singh alleged that Misra’s remarks damaged his reputation and pursued the criminal defamation complaint.
Underlying dispute
High Court’s reasoning
Misra denied Singh’s allegation that he took contradictory positions on e-waste rules.
Complainant’s allegations
Singh accused Misra of taking one position before a parliamentary committee and another while representing power distribution companies before the National Green Tribunal.
Continuation of proceedings
High Court’s reasoning
The court said continuing the case would not advance justice and would impose a criminal trial without sufficient foundational material.
Complainant’s allegations
Singh’s complaint led the trial court to summon Misra in April 2019, and he sought to pursue the defamation allegations.
Key facts
- Petitioner
- Pinaki Misra, senior advocate and former Biju Janata Dal Lok Sabha MP
- Complainant
- Advocate Siddhartha Singh
- Case type
- Criminal defamation
- Alleged words
- Misra allegedly called Singh a “crook” and “blackmailer”
- Earlier order
- A trial court summoned Misra in April 2019
- High Court judge
- Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
- Legal basis
- The proceedings were quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
Quotes
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Delhi High Court judge who issued the order
“There is no material on record, in the form of statement of any other person or otherwise, to prima facie demonstrate that the alleged imputation had the effect of lowering the reputation of Respondent No 2 (complainant) in the estimation of others. The allegation that the publication caused damage to his reputation, by itself, remains an assertion of the complainant and does not establish the statutory requirement contemplated by Explanation 4 to Section 499 (defamation) of IPC.”
thehansindia.com
“Accordingly, this court deems it appropriate, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC, to quash the impugned summoning order and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom. The petition is accordingly allowed.”
thehansindia.com
Sources
Related news
Delhi High Court Stays Defamation Case Against Sudarshan TV
Supreme Court Quashes Rahul Gandhi Defamation Case Over Savarkar Remarks
Court Orders ₹1,000 Cost Against Digvijaya Singh Defamation Case
Supreme Court Quashes Case Against Rahul Gandhi Over Savarkar Remarks
Supreme Court Rejects Badal Plea in AKJ Defamation Case
Dara Singh Remission Case Advances Amid Odisha BJP Legacy Push
Odisha Congress chief urges suspended MLA Sofia Firdous to resign
Congress urges fearless fight over amended mining law
Ex-BJD MLA Bikram Panda Released After Conditional Bail
Odisha BJP, BJD Clash Over New Mining Law
