Reporting Police Complaint Contents Does Not Constitute Defamation: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court, in Samir Kumaar Modi v. Nirmala Bagri, quashed summoning orders against a businessman, observing that the verbatim reproduction of a police complaint in news reports is protected under the law. The Court emphasized that reporting the contents of an FIR or a police complaint without distortion does not satisfy the ingredients of criminal defamation.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma heard the petitions challenging the orders of a Sessions Court that had directed the summoning of the petitioner. The petitioner, a former Executive Director of Godfrey Philips India Ltd., had been accused of defamation by fellow board members following news reports regarding an alleged assault on him during a company board meeting.

Verbatim Reproduction of Police Complaints Protected

The Court scrutinized the news articles published in The Economic Times and concluded that the allegedly defamatory statement which claimed other board members were "consenting parties" to an assault on the petitioner was a direct quote from the petitioner's written complaint to the police. The Court found that the respondents had failed to show any independent defamatory imputation made by the petitioner to the media beyond what was already part of the official police record.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "...reporting of the contents of a police complaint or an FIR by news agencies has, on several occasions, been the subject of judicial consideration... mere reporting of the registration of a crime or reproduction of the contents of an FIR, without distortion or embellishment, does not constitute defamation under Section 499 of IPC. It was observed that registration of an FIR is a matter in the public domain and faithful reporting thereof, in exercise of the freedom of speech and expression, cannot be treated as an intentional imputation harming reputation."

Application of Exception 8 to Section 499 IPC

The Protection of Good Faith Accusations

The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of Exception 8 to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This exception protects accusations made in good faith to an authorized person, such as a police officer. The Court noted that since the news articles merely quoted the accusation made to the police, the primary act was the filing of a complaint with a lawful authority.

Preventing Parallel Criminal Proceedings

Justice Sharma cautioned against allowing defamation cases to be used as a counter-blast to substantive criminal investigations. The Court noted: "If such an approach were to be permitted, it would lead to a situation where any person named as an accused in an FIR would become entitled to initiate criminal defamation proceedings against the complainant on the plea that the allegations are false... This would inevitably result in two parallel criminal proceedings arising out of the same incident one being the substantive criminal case instituted by the victim, and the other being a defamation case initiated by the accused."

The Court has the following directions:

"Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the impugned orders directing issuance of summons to the petitioner cannot be sustained in law and are therefore set aside, and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are also quashed."

Background:

The dispute originated from an incident on May 30, 2024, at the GPIL office in Delhi, where the petitioner alleged he was physically assaulted and prevented from attending a board meeting, resulting in a fractured finger. He lodged a complaint at P.S. Sarita Vihar, leading to an FIR under Sections 325 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Following news reports in The Economic Times that quoted his complaint regarding the alleged "consent" of other board members to the assault, two board members filed defamation complaints. While the Magistrate initially dismissed the complaints, the Sessions Court reversed that decision, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court. Relying on precedents like Iveco Magirus Brandschutztechnik GmbH v. Nirmal Kishore Bhartiya & Ors. ( "2023 SCC OnLine SC 1258": 2023 CaseBase(SC) 138) and Kishore Balkrishna Nand v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ( "(2023) 8 SCC 358": 2023 CaseBase(SC) 152), the High Court concluded that the ingredients of Section 499 were not met as the statements were protected disclosures to authorities.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRL.M.C. 6012/2025 & CRL.M.A. 25570/2025
Case Title: SAMIR KUMAAR MODI v. NIRMALA BAGRI (and connected matter)
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Sidharth Agarwal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Simran Lakhwinder Singh, Mr. Toyesh Tewari, Mr. Agastya Sen and Mr. Sharya Mittal, Advocates.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Mohit Mathur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Karan Sharma and Mr. Mohit Siwach, Advocates.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(DEL) 399