The Allahabad High Court recently quashed the defamation proceedings filed against right-wing platform Jaipur Dialogues Forum and its founder, Sanjay Dixit, over comments accusing a TV panellist and activist of trapping young women through online chatting [Sanjay Dixit v State of UP and another].

Justice Brij Raj Singh ruled that the complainant, Syed Rizwan Ahmad, had failed to produce any evidence to support his claim that his image was lowered in the eyes of others due to the comments made by Dixit.

“To constitute an offence of defamation, there has to be imputation and admission made in the manner as provided under the provision for knowing or causing harm or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of the person about whom it is made,” the Court explained.

It, however, noted that Ahmad failed to produce any witness to substantiate his case. 

“It is the case of opposite party no.2 that large number of people have seen the video which is defamatory in nature, but no one has been examined to prove his case, which is the statutory requirement,” the Bench said.

In 2019, Dixit had posted a tweet referring to the complainant, Ahmad, as a “casanova, lovebird and munafiq." He later also conducted a program in which Ahmad was accused of “trapping innocent girls through online chatting.”

Aggrieved by these comments, Ahmad filed a complaint under Section 500 (defamation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against Dixit and others.

Dixit was then summoned by a magistrate on Ahmad’s complaint in 2022. A bailable warrant was also issued against him a year later.

He then approached the High Court seeking the quashing of the defamation proceedings pending before a Lucknow magistrate. The Court was told that Dixit was an officer of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) in Rajasthan for 34 years and has authored various books. It was stated that post his retirement, he founded the Jaipur Dialogues Forum to foster a deeper understanding of Hindu culture and philosophy.

Dixit’s counsel further argued that the complaint did not disclose any offence in the nature of defamation.

It was submitted that Ahmad’s credentials are highly doubtful and that he has gained a social media following by portraying himself to be extremely critical of Islam. Dixit’s counsel added that it has been widely reported that Ahmad only uses the false narrative of being a 'nationalist' to trap innocent women.

In response, Ahmad argued that at the stage of issuing process, it was not the duty of the magistrate to find out whether the accused would be ultimately convicted or acquitted. He also submitted that the correctness or probability of evidence is to be looked into at the time of trial.

He further contended that the publication of the defamatory content was not limited to a few but was aired on social media and viewed by thousands of people. Denying the allegations made by Dixit against him, Ahmed added that none of the "victims" were revealed by Dixit. Imaginative allegations were made by Dixit without any proof, said Ahmad.

The Court at the outset observed that it was mandatory for the magistrate to postpone the issuance of process in this case, since the accused resided outside his jurisdiction.

“The Supreme Court in the case of Nakkheeran Gopal (supra) has observed that it is mandatory under Section 202 Cr.P.C. when the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of Magistrate, the issuance of process should be postponed. The Magistrate should either inquire the case himself of direct an investigation to be made by police officer or by such other person, he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding,” the Bench noted.

However, the Court opined that since a police investigation was not required in the case, the magistrate ought to have enquired into whether Ahmad’s reputation was harmed in the estimation of others.

“The complainant had not produced any witness under Section 202 Cr.P.C. to prima facie establish that the alleged imputation had lowered down his image in the estimation of others and the Magistrate has considered only the complainant's statement while issuing summons. Thus, the order passed by the Magistrate clearly suffers from procedural irregularities,” it concluded.

Thus, the Court quashed the summoning order as well as the entire defamation proceedings in the case initiated by Syed Rizwan Ahmad against the Jaipur Dialogues Forum and its founder.

Advocates Paavan Awasthi, Nadeem Murtaza and Prashast Puri represented Dixit.

Syed Rizwan Ahmad appeared in person.

[Read Judgment]