Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court on Friday quashed the criminal proceeding against PricewaterhouseCooper (PwC) Pvt. Ltd., and accordingly dismissed its former CFO's criminal defamation plea.

The court was hearing a plea filed by the PwC's former Chief Finance Officer (CFO), Sarvesh Mathur, who filed a criminal defamation suit against the company and its Chairperson after being referred to as a "disgruntled ex-employee" in articles published in the Economics Times and Outlook Magazine in 2017.

While dismissing the plea, Justice Asha Menon observed that "criminal liability cannot be fastened on the basis of a person holding a position with nothing more to specify the role played by such a person in the commission of a crime". And that, the reference to a "Spokesperson" cannot be inferred to refer to persons only because they hold prominent positions.

Mathur’s case is that he discovered certain irregularities in the method of working of the company, and on bringing the same to the attention of the organisation, he was sidelined and eventually forced to resign on December 31, 2011. However, on February 27, 2012, the company issued a letter of termination in which, as per Mathur defamatory allegations were made.

Thereafter, Mathur filed a complaint under Section 200 CrPC before the Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) Tis Hazari on October 22, 2018, alleging that the company and its employees had made defamatory statements and were punishable under Section 500 IPC.

On the complaint filed the Metropolitan Magistrate, summoned the accused on August 30, 2019, for the offence of defamation holding that the allegations prima facie constitute the aforesaid offence.

The company after being summoned filed a criminal revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Tis Hazari, on October 7, 2020. The ASJ concluded that there was no material on which the Trial Court could have summoned any of the accused persons and accordingly the summoning order was set aside in its entirety.

While rejecting the contention of Mathur, that the Sessions Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by quashing the summoning order, Court observed that Section 397 CrPC grants a Sessions Judge the authority to summon and examine the record of any inferior criminal court located within its jurisdiction to satisfy itself as to the correctness, legality, or propriety of any finding, evidence, or order recorded, as well as the regularity of any proceeding of inferior court.

The Bench added that the Sessions court would be well within its powers to satisfy itself about the legality and irregularity of the Trial Court's proceedings or orders to determine whether it was grossly erroneous and whether the finding was recorded based on no evidence, material evidence was ignored, or judicial discretion was exercised arbitrarily or perversely.

It further added, “It cannot be held that the Sessions Court had misdirected itself by looking at the nature of the publications to determine whether the Trial Court could have passed the order summoning the respondents.” Thus, the Court stated that his friend’s testimonies only record their perceptions of the situation and such statements fall short of the standard of proof required by Section 499 IPC to prove the commission of the offence under Section 500 IPC.

Upholding the impugned order, conclusively,  the Court held that the use of the term "disgruntled employee" was not slanderous is justified, the reading of the articles, as correctly observed by the Sessions Court, demonstrates that Mathur's grievance is a response to a query by the Economic Times regarding certain litigation initiated by him.

Court added, “It is for him to explain how litigation initiated by him became the subject matter of the publication. It is only fair reporting to seek a response from the person against whom charges have been leveled”.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the plea.

Case Title: Sarvesh Mathur v. State of NCT Delhi & Ors.