Cognizance in defamation case can be taken only on the basis of complaint and not on the basis of police report: Delhi HC rejects plea seeking stay on defamation proceedings against BJP leader Manjinder Singh Sirsa
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma [24-01-2024]

Read Order:Manjinder Singh Sirsa v. State Nct Of Delhi And Anr [DEL HC- CRL.M.C. 316/2024]

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, January 29, 2024: While observing that the offence of defamation was not a one-time offence committed in the year 2020, the Delhi High Court has dismissed the plea of BJP leader Manjinder Singh Sirsa seeking stay on proceedings initiated by a criminal complaint filed against him by former President of Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee (DSGMC)Manjit Singh GK.

The petitioner had approached the Delhi High Court by filing an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking ad-interim stay of the proceedings in a Complaint Casepending before the ACMMRouse Avenue Court, New Delhi.The summons in the aforesaid complaint case were issued against accused persons namely Manjinder Singh Sirsa, Harmeet Singh Kalka and Jagdeep Singh Kahlon. The accused persons had preferred a Criminal Revision against the said order, and the same stood dismissed which had been assailed in the petition.

The Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of petitioner, argued that impugned order passed by the ASJ in revisional jurisdiction had led to serious miscarriage of justice. It was argued by the Senior Counsel that the impugned order had been passed on the amended complaint of the complainant alleging defamation against the petitioner, which on the face of it, was time barred and was based on inadmissible material and allegations.

It was stated that for the incidents of alleged defamation were alleged to have taken place on 16.02.2020 and 21.02.2020, but the complainant had neither preferred application for condonation nor explained the delay. Thus, it was vehemently argued that the complaint, being filed after expiry of period of three years, was barred by time. It was further contended that the ASJ failed to take note of Section 210 of Cr.P.C. which provides that when in a criminal case instituted on private criminal, it is made to appear to Magistrate, during the course of inquiry or trial held by him, that an investigation by police is in progress in relation to the offence which is subject matter of inquiry or trial held by him, the Magistrate shall stay the proceedings of such inquiry or trial and call for a report in the matter from the police officer conducting the investigations. In this regard, it was submitted that allegations of defamation were regarding the letter in regard to usurping the land, which was under investigation in an FIR.

While opposing the grant of stay of trial proceedings, the Counsel for respondent no. 2/complainant argued that petitioner had been adopting delaying tactics, since after the impugned order was passed on 29.11.2023, the petitioner chose not to challenge the same, rather preferred a petition before this Court challenging the jurisdiction of Special Court constituted for cases pertaining to MP/MLAs. It was stated that only after this Court had dismissed his previous petition, the petitioner had now assailed the order dated 29.11.2023.

It was argued that the ASJ had dealt with the issue of limitation and had rightly observed that allegations against the accused persons extended beyond the incidents of February, 2020 since the incidents enumerated in the complaint were also of the year 2022 and 2023, and the videos and social media posts etc. of the defamatory content was still available on the internet. It was submitted that the ASJ had also rightly held that the contents of FIR and the offences for which it had been registered are different from the contents of complaint filed in present case for offence of defamation, and thus, Section 210 of Cr.P.C. would have no applicability.

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma noted that a perusal of the complaint filed for the offence of defamation by the respondent no. 2 revealed that there were allegations against the accused persons, of defaming the complainant between the period 2020 to 2023.

“Prima facie from the perusal of records, it appears that the offence of defamation in this case was not a one-time offence committed in the year 2020. At this stage, this Court does not prima facie find any infirmity with the observations, so as to stay the proceedings before the learned Trial Court”, the Bench added.

The Bench noted that the ASJ, after examining the provision of Section 210 of Cr.P.C. and the judicial precedents on it, had rightly observed that the FIR registered at P.S. Economic Offences Wing, Delhi, in relation to preparation of forged letter was registered on the basis of complaint filed by the respondent no. 2/complainant herein, pursuant to an order passed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The said FIR stood registered under Sections 420/468/471/120B of IPC.

The FIR has not been registered under Sections 499/500 of IPC i.e. for the offence of defamation, in relation to which the complainant had preferred to file the present complaint. It was also noticed that the ASJ, after considering the law on point, had observed that the purpose of Section 210 of Cr.P.C. was to avoid taking cognizance of the same offence again, to avoid separate trial for the same offence. However, in the present case, the complaint case had been filed for offence of defamation and the FIR had been registered for offences of cheating and forgery, and the question of taking cognizance of the same offence would not arise.

“…besides the fact that Court is also barred from taking cognizance of the offence of defamation on a police report, which can only be taken on a complaint filed by the aggrieved party. It was also observed by learned ASJ that this is not a situation where if cognizance is taken on the basis of police report, it would be for the same offence for which the cognizance is taken in the complaint case, considering the fact that cognizance in a defamation case can be taken only on the basis of a complaint and not on the basis of police report”, the Bench added.

The Bench found that the ASJ had examined in detail, the issue of registration of FIR and simultaneous proceedings in the present complaint case for commission of offence of defamation. Thus, without finding any reason to stay the proceedings in the present complaint case, the Bench dismissed the applications.