High Court Refuses To Quash Summons In Police Officer Defamation Telecast, Holds Matter Requires Trial

A single‑judge bench of Justice Brij Raj Singh heard an application under Section 482 CrPC challenging the summoning order dated 12.12.2018 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.32, Lucknow in Complaint Case No.1297. The petitioners — three journalists and editors of News18 Punjab/Haryana/Himachal Pradesh — sought quashing of the summons issued in a complaint by an IPS officer alleging defamatory telecast on 20.09.2017; the State and the complainant resisted the petition.

The High Court rejected the quashing application and directed that the matter proceed to trial, holding that the court at the 482 stage could not weigh evidence or conduct a "mini‑trial". The judgment noted the earlier order of the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.14790 of 2023 which had observed that the magistrate had taken note of the inquiry report that exonerated the complainant and had considered relevant documents before passing the summoning order. The court emphasised that it could not record a finding of innocence on the face of averments and materials presented in the complaint. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “After going through the aforesaid factual aspect, this Court cannot weigh the evidences. Certainly, the trial is required. This Court, under Section 482 CrPC, cannot record the finding whether the applicants are innocent or not. In the case of Aryan Singh (Supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the High Court has materially erred in going in detail in the allegations and the material collected during the course of the investigation against the accused. The Court is not required to conduct the mini-trial, at this stage of discharge/quashing of the criminal proceedings. Similarly, in the case of Sampelly Satyanarayana Rao (Supra), Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that while dealing with a quashing petition, the court has ordinarily to proceed on the basis of averments in the complaint. The defence of the accused cannot be considered at that stage. The court, considering the prayer for quashing does not adjudicate upon a disputed question of fact. Similarly, in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. (Supra), law is propounded by Hon’ble Supreme Court that while examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint.” The court further stated that “the case requires trial and this Court, in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC, cannot interfere in the case.”

Background The complaint arose after a News18 channel telecast on 20.09.2017 alleged that the complainant, then IG STF Uttar Pradesh, had been involved in releasing a key accused in the Nabha jail break in exchange for money. The telecast followed print and electronic reports of the arrest and alleged release of Gurpreet Singh alias Gopi Ghanshyampuria; newspapers such as The Tribune and Dainik Jagran had also reported aspects of the incident. The State ordered a high‑level inquiry by the Additional Director General of Police (Law & Order) which submitted a report on 28.09.2017 exonerating the officer.

The complainant filed a criminal complaint on 28.05.2018; the magistrate recorded the complainant’s statement under Section 200 CrPC and statements of two witnesses under Section 202 CrPC before issuing summons to the three News18 employees. The petitioners contended that they had only telecast conversations as they occurred, denied any defamatory imputations, and relied on authorities shielding fair and bona fide reporting. They argued that the magistrate issued summons without proper application of mind. The complainant and the State countered that the telecast lowered the officer’s reputation, the telecast was made in Uttar Pradesh and therefore caused harm, and exceptions to defamation in Section 499 IPC could not be evaluated at the quashing stage.

The High Court reviewed rival submissions and a series of precedents, including Supreme Court decisions cautioning High Courts against detailed re‑appraisal of allegations at the quashing stage. The court noted the Supreme Court’s order in SLP (Crl.) No.14790/2023 which had taken note that the magistrate considered the inquiry report and did not find error in the summoning. Applying the settled principle that a quashing petition should proceed on the basis of the complaint’s averments and that disputed questions of fact were for trial, the High Court dismissed the 482 petition and directed trial to continue. No order as to costs was made.

Case No.: A482 No. - 3237 of 2020 Case Title: Jyoti Kamal and others Versus State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. and another Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Nadeem Murtaza, Anjani Kumar Mishra For the Respondent(s): G.A.; Ishan Baghel; Mohd. Khalid