Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Jabalpur bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has allowed a defamation case, filed by Senior Advocate and Member of Parliament Vivek Tankha, against Shivraj Singh Chouhan, former Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh and currently serving as a Union Minister for Agriculture, Farmers Welfare, and Rural Development, among other BJP leaders MP Vishnu Datt Sharma, and MLA Bhoopendra Singh earlier this year, to proceed.

The court, presided over by Justice Sanjay Dwivedi, was hearing a petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) by the accused applicants, who sought to quash an order from the Judicial Magistrate dated January 20, 2024. The petition also aimed to dismiss the private complaint pending before the Judicial Magistrate in Jabalpur.

The complaint alleges that the three leaders made defamatory remarks against Tankha related to a Supreme Court case from 2021 concerning State Panchayat elections. The complainant alleges that the applicants launched a coordinated campaign against him, falsely portraying him as opposed to OBC reservations. Tankha accused the applicants of spreading falsehoods through media outlets, thereby damaging his reputation. He emphasised that the accused individuals were aware of the true context of the court proceedings but chose to misrepresent it for political gain. Notably, one of the applicants allegedly tweeted defamatory content suggesting Tankha was responsible for the suspension of OBC reservations.

Senior Advocate Surendra Singh, appearing for the applicants, contended that the basis of the complaint rested on newspaper articles, which should not be considered credible evidence for criminal proceedings.

Conversely, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Tankha, argued that the evidence presented in the complaint was sufficient to establish a prima facie case of defamation. It was argued that the admissibility of the evidence would be determined during the trial and that the court, at this stage, should only assess whether the complaint contained the necessary elements to proceed.

The High Court, ruling in favour of Tankha, upheld the trial court's order to take cognizance, ruling that the trial court was correct in deciding that the complaint's evidence could not be dismissed at the preliminary stage. The court stated, “this is not a stage where the court can draw an inference that the material placed by the complainant could have been thrown-out terming it ‘inadmissible’,”underscoring the importance of the Fifth Exception to Section 499 of the IPC, which protects opinions expressed in good faith regarding the merits of a case or the conduct of individuals involved.

The court also highlighted that the complainant had sent a notice to the applicants for clarification following their statements, to which they did not respond, emphasising that “It is amply clear that the case has to be decided on merits in Court.”

Ultimately, the court concluded that “it is for the trial Court to see whether the offence under Section 499 of IPC has been committed or not and that can only be determined on the basis of evidence adduced during the trial,” while dismissing the petition seeking to quash the case.

 

Cause Title: Shivraj Singh Chouhan v Vivek Krishna Tankha [MCrC No.12558/2024]