SUPREME COURT QUASHES DEFAMATION CASE AGAINST THE ACCUSED AFTER HE WITHDREW HIS STATEMENT AGAINST GUJARATIS

A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan Judgment dated 13-02-2024 in the matter of Tejashwi Prasad Yadav vs. Hareshbhai Pranshankar Mehta, Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. 846 of 2023 and held that it is evident that the Petitioner has not only withdrawn the statements that led to the Complaint filed against him, but he has also mentioned that he never intended to defame the Gujarati community.

FACTS:

1) That the aforesaid Petition filed before the Apex Court by one, Tejashwi Prasad Yadav (Appellant) against one Hareshbhai Pranshankar Mehta (Respondent). The Respondent filed a private Complaint against the Petitioner in the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, alleging the commission of the offence under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 (Defamation), which is punishable under Section 500 IPC (Punishment for Defamation). The Learned Magistrate issued a Summons on 28.08.2023. The present Petition seeks a transfer of the Complaint from the Court in Ahmedabad to a Court in Delhi.

2) The Complaint is based on the utterances of the Petitioner, which formed part of a public statement made by the Petitioner on 22.03.2023, reported by both electronic and print media. It was alleged in the Complaint that the Petitioner made a public statement to the effect of: “Jo bhi do thug hai na, jo thug hai, thug ko anumati jo hai, aaj ke desh ke condition me dekha jaye then only Gujarati hi thug ho sakte hai, aur uske thug ko maaf kiya jayega. LIC ko paisa do, bank ko paisa do, fir wo log le ke bhag jayenge, to kaun jimmedaar hoga?”

3) The Respondent relied upon a pen drive containing a video of the Petitioner’s statement appearing on YouTube. The case made out by the Respondent is that by the above utterances, the Petitioner has defamed the Gujarati people and the entire society of Gujarat. The Complainant alleged that the Petitioner described all Gujarati people as “thugs,” leading to people from other societies viewing Gujaratis as crooks and criminals. At the time the Complaint was filed, the Petitioner was the Deputy Chief Minister of Bihar.

4) This Court issued notice on 06.11.2023 and granted a stay of proceedings of the Complaint. The Petitioner filed an Affidavit dated 18.01.2024, clarifying the context in which the statement was made and expressing regret if sentiments were hurt. Another Affidavit was filed on 31.01.2024, further withdrawing the offending statements and expressing no ill will against Gujaratis.

5) The learned Counsel for the Respondent stated on 05.02.2024, that although specific instructions to consent to quash the Complaint weren’t given, in light of the withdrawal of statements and Affidavits filed by the Petitioner, appropriate orders could be passed.

6) After considering the Affidavits and Explanations provided by the Petitioner, the Apex Court concluded that the statements were unconditionally withdrawn, and it was unjust to continue the prosecution. Thus, the Supreme Court quashed the Criminal Case pending in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad. As a result, the prayer for transfer also didn’t survive.

SUPREME COURT

ISSUES

I) The issue before the Supreme Court in this case was primarily centred around whether to quash the criminal Complaint filed against the Petitioner in the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, alleging defamation under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Complaint was based on certain statements made by the Petitioner, which were deemed defamatory to the Gujarati community.

II) The Petitioner sought the transfer of the Complaint from the Ahmedabad court to a Court in Delhi. However, the main contention revolved around whether the statements made by the Petitioner warranted prosecution for defamation, and if so, whether the Supreme Court should intervene to quash the proceedings.

III) The Supreme Court had to consider various factors, including the context in which the statements were made, the Petitioner’s intention, any withdrawal or clarification made by the Petitioner, and the overall impact of the statements on the affected community. Ultimately, the Court had to determine whether it was just and equitable to continue with the prosecution or whether it should be quashed, considering the principles of justice and fairness.

OBSERVATIONS

I) The statements made by the Petitioner, which formed the basis of the Complaint, were unconditionally withdrawn through Affidavits filed by the Petitioner. These statements were deemed defamatory to the entire Gujarati community but the Petitioner clarified the context in which the statements were made, stating that they were in response to a specific question regarding allegations against Mehul Choksi and the failure of authorities to bring him back to India. The Petitioner expressed regret if any sentiments were hurt and emphasized holding Gujaratis in high esteem.

ii) The Apex Court noted the Petitioner’s repeated assertions that there was no intention to defame Gujaratis as a community and acknowledged the withdrawal of the offending statements. While acknowledging that not every prosecution for defamation can be quashed merely because offending allegations are withdrawn, the Court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (Enforcement of decrees and orders of Supreme Court and orders as to discovery, etc) which empowers it to pass any decree or order necessary for complete justice.

iii) Further, the Bench considered the Petitioner’s explanations and withdrawal of statements, coupled with no ill will against Gujaratis as expressed in the Affidavits, the Court deemed it unjust to continue the prosecution. It was observed that no purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution in the peculiar facts of the case.

iv) Consequently, the Court exercised its powers under Article 142 and quashed the criminal case pending in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad. As a result, the prayer for transfer of the Complaint also became unnecessary.

CONCLUSION

Based on the aforementioned facts, the Supreme Court, after thorough consideration of the Affidavits, arguments, and circumstances presented before it, decided to exercise its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and quash the criminal Complaint filed against the Petitioner in the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad. The Court observed that the Petitioner had unconditionally withdrawn the statements that were deemed defamatory to the Gujarati community and had expressed no ill will towards them. Additionally, the Court noted that the statements were made in a specific context and were not intended to defame the community. Therefore, continuing with the prosecution was deemed unjust in the peculiar facts of the case. As a result, the prayer for transferring the Complaint also became unnecessary. The petition was disposed of accordingly.

 

Sakshi Raghuvanshi

Legal Associate

The Indian Lawyer