No Defamation Without Publication To Third Parties: Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh HC

Merely communicating allegedly defamatory content in court pleadings directly to the opposing party without publishing or disclosing it to third parties does not constitute the offence of defamation. Adjudicating a batch of quashing petitions, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held that the primary requirement for establishing criminal defamation is the actual dissemination of the harmful imputation to a third person.

A single judge bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal quashed criminal proceedings pending against an individual, observing that trial courts cannot entertain complaints where no publication has taken place within their territorial jurisdiction.

Court's Reasoning on Publication and Jurisdiction

The High Court carefully examined the statutory provisions governing defamation under Section 499 of the RPC (RPC), alongside the jurisdictional mandates prescribed under Section 177 and Section 179 of the Cr.P.C..

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "It is a settled position of law that the offense of defamation is not attracted unless the defamatory matter is published and brought to the knowledge of a third party; merely transmitting defamatory material to the person concerned, without publication to others, does not constitute defamation. Be that as it may, the suit containing the alleged imputations was filed, and in the absence of any averment or material establishing publication of the allegedly defamatory content at Jammu, no part of the alleged offense can be said to have been committed within the local limits of the territorial jurisdiction of the learned trial court at Jammu."

Addressing the requirement of publication, the Court relied on precedent, noting that the word "makes" in Section 499 is used conjunctively with "publishes" to connote making the imputation public. Referring to the decision in P.R Ramakrishnan v. Subbaramma Sastrigal And Another, the Court reinforced that there is no publication if the libellor merely communicates the libel to the person defamed. Similarly, the bench highlighted the principle articulated in re Bhulliram Jalam Vs. null, which established that the essence of defamation lies in arousing the hostility of others by communicating the statement to a third person.

In relation to the complaint where process had been issued, the High Court quashed the order dated 02.05.2017 along with the underlying proceedings. Regarding the other petitions where the trial court had merely directed an inquiry under Section 202 CrPC without issuing summons, the Court dismissed them as premature, relying on the principles in Pepsi Foods Ltd. Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate ( "(1998) 5 SCC 749": 1997 CaseBase(SC) 972) concerning the necessity of judicial application of mind at the stage of issuing process.

Background

The dispute originated from a civil suit instituted before the Patiala House Court in Delhi by the petitioner, Satish Koul, against his co-brother Rakesh Zutshi, one Amardeep Singh, and others. In the civil suit, the petitioner had made certain grave allegations against the respondents, portraying them as fraudsters and blackmailers.

In response to the suit filed in Delhi, Amardeep Singh and Rakesh Zutshi filed separate criminal complaints before the Judicial Magistrate in Jammu under Sections 500 and 506 of the RPC, alleging that the statements made in the Delhi civil suit had damaged their reputation. In Amardeep Singh's complaint, the trial court issued process against the petitioner, while in Rakesh Zutshi's complaints, the Magistrate postponed process and referred the matters for inquiry under Section 202 CrPC to the police.

Aggrieved by these orders, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking to quash all four complaints and related orders on the grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction and absence of basic elements of defamation and criminal intimidation. The High Court allowed the petition challenging the order where process was issued and dismissed the remaining petitions as premature.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRMC No.459/2017, IA No.1/2017, CRMC No. 254/2017, IA No. 1/2017, CRMC No. 255/2017, IA No. 1/2017, CRMC No. 256/2017, IA No. 1/2017
Neutral Citation: 2026:JKLHC-JMU:2746
Case Title: Satish Koul v. Amardeep Singh & Anr.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Sunil Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Navyug Sethi, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Kumar Love, Advocate, Mr. Sanjay Raina, Advocate

Source: 2026 CaseBase(JK) 77