The Delhi High Court has quashed a criminal defamation complaint against Senior Advocate and former Biju Janata Dal (BJD) Member of Parliament Pinaki Misra for allegedy calling a lawyer a “crook” and “blackmailer” [Pinaki Misra v State & Anr]. .In an order passed on August 25, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma also set aside a 2019 summoning order issued by a magistrate’s court. “Therefore, this Court is of the view that permitting the criminal proceedings to continue would not advance the cause of justice and would instead subject the petitioner to the rigours of a criminal trial in the absence of sufficient foundational material. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the impugned summoning order and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom,” the Court ordered. .The case arose after Advocate Siddhartha Singh filed a complaint with the Bar Council of Delhi in August 2018, accusing Mishra of professional misconduct during his appearances for power distribution companies before the National Green Tribunal (NGT). After the dispute was reported in the Economic Times, Mishra allegedly gave an interview to Daily Hunt News in January 2019 in which he allegedly used the words “crook” and “black mailer”. Singh then filed two separate complaints under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which criminalises defamation, both leading to summoning orders in April 2019. .The High Court noted that Singh examined only himself during pre-summoning evidence and produced no independent witness to establish that the alleged remarks had actually damaged his standing among others. “This Court is of the considered view that the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice, particularly when the respondent no. 2 [complainant advocate Siddhartha Singh], having examined himself as the sole witness, has not placed any material to prima facie demonstrate that the alleged imputation had lowered his reputation in the estimation of others as contemplated under Explanation 4 to Section 499 of IPC,” the Court observed. It added that the alleged imputation was founded on an online news report that has not been corroborated by examination of the concerned reporter, author, editor, or any other person associated with the news portal. Therefore, the Bench quashed the case. .Senior Advocate Rebecca M John along with Advocates Anushka Baruah, Pravir Singh and Nilanjan Dey represented Misra. .Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Manoj Pant appeared for the state. The complainant was represented through Advocate Divyang Kiswan. .[Read Judgment]
