J&K High Court quashes defamation complaint

A bench of Judge Javed Iqbal Wani added that filing the impugned complaint amounted to an abuse of process of law, thereby undermining the sanctity of the legal system. It further noted that such conduct not only burdens the judiciary with unnecessary litigation but also diverts attention from core issues that actually require trial.

Background:

The dispute between the petitioner, Kuldeep Raj Dubey, and the respondent, Puneet Sharma, has its origins in 2018, when Kuldeep Raj had filed a complaint under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, seeking police action against Sharma for offenses under of Section 447. , 427, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

Following the complaint, the police registered an FIR against Puneet Sharma on April 11, 2018. Sharma challenged the FIR, which the Supreme Court quashed in February 2023, ruling that the allegations were baseless.

Subsequently, Puneet filed a defamation complaint against Kuldeep Raj, alleging that the FIR had caused irreparable damage to his reputation as the police action took place in broad daylight, with neighbors and acquaintances witnessing the police presence in his house. Puneet argued that the FIR was defamatory in nature as it was eventually quashed.

Kuldeep filed the present petition under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking quashing of the defamation complaint and the cognizance order dated April 20, 2023. He submitted that the complaint was barred under Section 468 of the CrPC as the period of three years for filing the complaint had expired. He further claimed that the police were merely carrying out their duties and their actions did not amount to defamation.

Respondent Puneet opposed the petition and justified the delay in filing the defamation complaint by invoking Sections 470 and 473 of the CrPC. He submitted that the period during which the FIR was challenged should be excluded from the limitation period and that the interest of justice necessitated prosecution of the complaint.

The Court’s observations:

While ruling on the case, Justice Wani delved into the provisions of defamation under Section 499 of the IPC and the procedural rules relating to limitation under Sections 468, 469 and 470 of the CrPC. The court reiterated that a defamation complaint under Section 500 IPC must be filed within three years from the date of the alleged offence.

The court emphasized that the mere fact that the police performed their duties in public did not constitute defamation. It stated,

“.. the police only acted in line with their duty in registering the said FIR, a process which is standard procedure in any investigation. The fact that the local people became aware of the registration of the said FIR during the course of the search is a natural consequence of the law enforcement agency and its presence in a residential area cannot necessarily be construed as defamatory conduct as alleged by the respondent herein.

The court also discussed the defendant’s appeal to the 2016 judgment of the Supreme Court Subramanian Swamy v Union of India and clarified that the police cannot register an FIR for defamation. Thus, Puneet Sharma’s claim that he had initially approached the police to file a defamation case was baseless.

“..From the plain reading of Section 199 Cr.PC supra coupled with the law laid down by the Apex Court in the Subramanian judgment supra, it is clear that the police cannot register an FIR for committing an offense under Section 500 IPC. Therefore, the explanation for the delay offered by the respondent herein in having approached the police station to take action against the petitioner herein falls to pieces.” the bench noted.

Regarding the limitation issue, the court refers to the judgment of the Supreme Court Surinder Mohan Vikal vs. Ascharaj Lal Chopra (1978)which clarified that the limitation period starts from the date of the alleged criminal offence. Since Puneet Sharma’s complaint was filed five years after the registration of the FIR, it was considered time-barred. The court noted, “Invoking Section 473 of the CrPC is impermissible at this stage as the respondent has failed to seek extension of limitation period while filing the complaint.”

Moreover, the court criticized the magistrate for conducting the issuance process without examining the restriction issue. Quote Pepsi Foods Ltd. against special judicial magistrate (1998)reminded the court that issuing a summons in criminal cases is a serious matter and requires the application of the judicial mind.

The court termed the defamation complaint as an ill-conceived attempt by Puneet Sharma to take revenge on Kuldeep Raj: “Such abuse of process burdens the courts with unnecessary litigation and distracts from substantive issues.”

The court concluded by quashing the defamation complaint along with the cognizance order, declaring that the lawsuits must come to an end. If the defendant did not observe the statute of limitations, the court cannot hear the case now.

Case Title: Kuldeep Raj Dubey vs Puneet Sharma

Visa: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 293

Click here to read/download the judgment