Forwarding fake newspaper clipping on WhatsApp not forgery without proof of fabrication: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court on Wednesday held that merely forwarding a fake newspaper clipping via WhatsApp, without evidence that the sender created or forged it, does not amount to forgery under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) [Kaushalbhai Jagdishbhai Asodiya v State of Gujarat & Anr.].

Justice PM Raval made the observation while quashing a first information report (FIR) against a man accused of forwarding a fake newspaper clipping on WhatsApp as part of a conspiracy to defame the complainant.

The Court found no material to show that the accused had forged the forwarded newspaper clipping or intended to harm the complainant's reputation. It noted that his role was limited to forwarding the clipping to another person, who later shared it with the complainant.

Holding that the allegations in the FIR and the material collected during the investigation did not disclose the offence of forgery for harming reputation, the Court observed,

"Even if the allegations are taken as it is on the face of it do not constitute offence under Section 469 of the IPC (forgery for harming reputation). Not an iota of evidence is collected during investigation, nor is there any whisper in the FIR nor in the counter of the chargesheet, which would reveal attracting the provisions of Section 469 of the IPC (forgery for harming reputation)."

The FIR stemmed from a complaint by a Bahujan Samaj Party member, who alleged that several persons had conspired to circulate a fake newspaper clipping on WhatsApp and social media to defame him and his political party. The complainant also works as a public notary and publishes the magazine Nyayik Samiksha.

However, the High Court noted that the petitioner was not accused of having created or circulated the fake news beyond forwarding it to another individual. It also found that the publisher and editor of the newspaper in which the allegedly defamatory item appeared had not been named as accused.

The Court highlighted the limited role attributed to the petitioner.

"He has not indulged into circulating the said news if at all is if it is fake, coupled with the fact that the publisher and/or the editor of the said newspaper are not made accused in the impugned FIR or in the chargesheet also, who have allegedly published the alleged defamatory statement as per the complainant," the Court observed.

The Court further held that the allegations also failed to make out offences of defamation, printing defamatory matter, criminal conspiracy or abetment.

"What has been forwarded by the present petitioner would also not fall within the four corners of the definition of Section 469 of IPC namely defamation. Since the FIR and the papers of the chargesheet are conspicuously silent, as to how the complainant and or his party is/are harmed defamed. Thus, it cannot be said that the petitioner has forged any news item, more particularly, there is nothing on record from the papers of investigation that such news item was forged by the present petitioner. Under the circumstances, provisions of Section 469 (forgery for harming reputation), 500 (defamation), 501 (printing or engraving defamatory matter), 120(B) (criminal conspiracy) and 114 IPC (abetment) of the IPC are not made out," held the Court.

Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in State of Haryana v Bhajan Lal, the Court held that allowing the prosecution to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of law. It quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings against the petitioner.

Advocate Manthan V Shukla appeared for the petitioner.

Advocate Ratna Vora represented the original complainant (Respondent No 2).

Additional Public Prosecutor Rohan Shah appeared for the State.

[Read Judgment]