Factual aspects
Defamation complaint against the petitioner and the appellant seeking transfer
1) The respondent filed a private complaint against the petitioner in the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, alleging commission of the offence under Section 499, which is punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’). The learned Magistrate issued a summons on 28th August 2023. The present petition seeks a transfer of the complaint from the Court in Ahmedabad to a Court in Delhi.
Appellant defamed the Gujarati people as ‘thugs’
2) The complaint is based on the utterances of the petitioner, which formed part of a public statement made by the petitioner on 22nd March 2023, which was reported by both electronic and print media. It is alleged in the complaint Transfer Petition (Crl.) no.846 of 2023 Page 2 of 7 that the petitioner made a public statement to the following effect:-
“Vernacular language ……”
The respondent relied upon a pen drive of 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. His contention is that the petitioner described all Gujarati people as “thugs”. According to the case made out in the complaint, as a result of the said utterances, people from other societies have started looking upon Gujaratis as crooks and criminals. When the complaint was filed, the petitioner was the Deputy Chief Minister of Bihar
In the meanwhile the petitioner filed two affidavit withdrawing the offending statements made by him. Hence the Apex court held:
Petitioner withdrawn the offending statements
5) From the two affidavits, it is clear that not only has the petitioner withdrawn the offending statements made by him based on which the complaint was filed, but he has also stated that he never intended to defame Gujaratis as a community. He has also stated that he holds Gujaratis as a community in great esteem. On a conjoint reading of both the affidavits, it is very clear that the petitioner has withdrawn the statements made by him on 22nd March 2023, which, according to the respondent, were defamatory to the entire Gujarati community
Respondent was not ready to quash the complaint
7) On 5th February 2024, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent stated that the respondent has not given him specific instructions to consent to quashing the complaint. However, the learned counsel fairly submitted that in the light of the withdrawal of the statements and two affidavits filed by the petitioner, this Court may pass appropriate orders.
Normal rule is prosecution for defamation cannot be quashed on the ground that the offending allegations were withdrawn
9) It is true that every prosecution for defamation for the offence under Section 499, which is punishable under Section 500 of the IPC, cannot be quashed on the ground that the offending allegations have been withdrawn.
10) However, in the facts of the present case, not only that the statements have been unconditionally withdrawn, but the petitioner has also explained the circumstances and the context in which the statements were made. Under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, this Court possesses extraordinary Constitutional powers to pass any decree or order which is necessary for doing complete justice between the parties. In this case, the respondent appears to have been hurt in view of the statements made by the petitioner generally about Gujarati people. Now, after the petitioner has explained the context in which he made the statements and after withdrawal of those statements, in the facts of the case, it is unjust to continue the prosecution. No purpose will be served by continuing the prosecution. Therefore, we are of the view that in the peculiar facts of the case, this is a fit case to quash the complaint.
Case quashed
11) Hence, we quash criminal case bearing no.CC/83849/2023 arising out of the case no.CR/EN/7110/2023, titled Hareshbhai Pranshankar Mehta versus Tejaswi Lalu Prasad Yadav, pending in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad. As the complaint has been quashed, the prayer for transfer will not survive.
Party
Tejashwi Prasad Yadav … Petitioner versus Hareshbhai Pranshankar Mehta … Respondent – TRANSFER PETITION (CRL.) NO. 846 OF 2023 – 2024 INSC 108 – February 13, 2024
https://www.sci.gov.in/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php?action=get_judgements_pdf&diary_no=428562023&type=j&order_date=2024-02-13
Tejashwi Prasad Yadav vs. Hareshbhai Pranshankar Mehta – 428562023_2024-02-13
