Delhi High Court refuses to quash criminal complaint against Aroon Purie for allegedly defamatory article in India Today

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday refused to quash a criminal defamation complaint and summoning order against Aroon Purie in connection with an article published in India Today magazine in 2007. (Aroon Poorie vs State).The order was passed by a Single Judge Bench of Justice Yogesh Khanna..The criminal case was filed against Purie in relation to a news item 'Mission Misconduct' which was published by India Today magazine in its edition dated April 30, 2007..Purie inter alia contended that at the time of the publication of the news item, the allegation of sexual harassment and financial irregularity had already been made against the complainant and even steps for disciplinary proceedings had been initiated. .The news item, therefore, only reported a fact which was in public record, it was stated. .It was also argued that the summoning order was liable to be quashed on the ground of violation of Section 202 CrPC (mandatory enquiry into where the accused was residing), as well as sections 196(2) [previous sanction of the Central Government or of the State Government or of the District Magistrate for certain offences] and Section 197 CrPC (Prosecution of Judges and public servants)..The Respondent, on the other hand, maintained that India Today went ahead with the publication of an "unsubstantiated and unverified defamatory story" which was splashed it all over the world through the medium of internet, without any basis..It was emphasised that the story was published much prior to the complainant receiving any show-cause for the alleged misconducts..Till date, even during his retired life, the contents of the defamatory article haunt the complainant who is vigorously pursuing litigation, it was argued. .First, the Court opined that objection with respect to Section 196(2) CrPC was not relevant at this stage as a Metropolitan Magistrate, after due process of law and after applying her mind to the facts and circumstances of the complaint, had taken cognizance and consented, in writing, to the initiation of the proceedings vide a summoning order..The objection in relation to violation of Section 197 CRPC was also rejected by the Court as Purie was neither a judge nor a public servant, and therefore, no sanction was required to initiate criminal action..The Court further ruled that the enquiry contemplated under Section 202 CrPC did not necessarily mean an enquiry by examining witnesses or by holding an investigation into the case or in any particular form. .Noting that the summoning order for the offences punishable under Section 499/500/501/502 IPC read with Section 120B IPC was issued on the basis of pre-summoning evidence, the Court observed,"The Magistrate can do it in any way he thinks proper. Moreover, the accused persons against whom the summons’ were issued were all within the jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court, New Delhi District.".In view of the allegations and counter allegations made by the parties, which raise disputed question of facts, the Court opined that the same could not be dwelled into by it Court under Section 482 CrPC. "At this stage we need to see only the contents of the complaint. The evidence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.", it said. .The Court further said, "..the assertions the news item merely reported facts which were accurate and reflected public records and cannot be held to be defamatory, cannot be accepted. Rather such assertion and who was responsible for its publication and has it came to the fore of editors require critical examination and hence evidence of these issues is required.".As a matter of prudence and proprietary, the Court also opined that it would be appropriate for Purie to first approach the Sessions Court to challenge the summoning order.."Even though powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C are very wide and the petitioner always has the liberty to invoke either of the jurisdictions whether it is under Section 397 Cr.P.C or Section 482 Cr.P.C being concurrent one, but the propriety demands that elder superior court in hierarchy must be approached first..High Court can be approached first in circumstances where the lower court has directly or indirectly interfered in the investigation or trial through its order or action, which justice demands High Court alone should interfere in an order of the Magistrate. It is not so in the present case.".The Court ultimately concluded that there no ground to interfere with the ongoing trial under Section 482 CrPC and dismissed the petition. .The petition by Saurabh Shukla, the correspondent concerned, against the complaint was also dismissed. .Read the order: