2025 INSC 241 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 814 OF 2025

(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 10212 of 2024

JAIDEEP BOSE ... APPELLANT

VERSUS

M/S. BID AND HAMMER AUCTIONEERS

PRIVATE LIMITED ... RESPONDENT

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 815 OF 2025

(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 13443 of 2024

NERGISH SUNAVALA ... APPELLANT

VERSUS

M/S. BID AND HAMMER AUCTIONEERS

PRIVATE LIMITED & OTHERS ... RESPONDENTS

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 816 OF 2025

(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 15653 of 2024

SWATI DESHPANDE & OTHERS ... APPELLANTS

VERSUS

M/S. BID AND HAMMER AUCTIONEERS

PRIVATE LIMITED ... RESPONDENT

2

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 817 OF 2025

(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 16153 of 2024

NEELAM RAAJ ... APPELLANT

VERSUS

M/S. BID AND HAMMER AUCTIONEERS

PRIVATE LIMITED ... RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

R. MAHADEVAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are directed against an order dated 18.06.2024 passed by the

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru

1

in Criminal Petition No.3829 of 2017,

titled ‘Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd and others v. M/s. Bid and Hammer

Auctioneers Private Limited, arising out of complaint in PCR No.13146/2014 and

CC No.18491 of 2016 pending on the file of the Court of II Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru

2

. By the said order, the High Court dismissed

the criminal petition filed by the appellants herein challenging the initiation of

the criminal proceedings against them for the offences under sections 499 and

1

Hereinafter referred to as “the High Court”

2

Hereinafter referred to as “the trial Court”

3

500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

3

, however, quashed the complaint as far as

M/s. Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd.

4

(Accused No.1) is concerned.

3. The genesis of the present cases lies in a private complaint dated

22.08.2014 filed by the complainant / respondent herein against the company and

its directors, editors and journalists, numbering 14 accused persons, under Section

200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

5

read with Sections 499 and 500

IPC. The gravamen of the complaint pertains to certain news articles published

in various newspapers viz., Bangalore Mirror, Mumbai Mirror, The Times of

India (Bangalore, Kolkata, Mumbai, New Delhi, and Pune Editions), and The

Economic Times (New Delhi and Mumbai editions) on 27.06.2014, 28.06.2014,

29.06.2014, 06.07.2014, 07.07.2014, and 20.07.2014 which contained alleged

defamatory contents regarding the authenticity of certain paintings to be

auctioned by the respondent herein.

4. Upon receipt of the complaint, the sworn statement of the complainant /

respondent was recorded on 14.11.2014. Thereafter, the trial Court took

cognizance of the complaint and directed to register the same for the offences

under sections 499 and 500 IPC and issue summons to the accused, vide order

dated 29.07.2016. The complaint was received as PCR No.13146/2014 and later,

3

For short, “IPC”

4

For short, “the company”

5

For short, “Cr.P.C”

4

registered as CC No.18491 of 2016 which is now, pending on the file of the trial

Court.

5. Challenging the issuance of summons, the appellants filed Criminal

Petition No.3829 of 2017 before the High Court seeking to quash the criminal

proceedings initiated against them. After due contest, the High Court dismissed

the petition as against the appellants herein, however, quashed the complaint as

far as the company (A1) is concerned. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants are

before us with the present appeals.

CONTENTIONS

6. The learned counsel for the appellant / Accused No.2 [SLP (Crl.) No.10212

of 2024] made the following submissions:

(a) The appellant is neither the author of the alleged defamatory news

articles nor editor of any of the newspapers in question; and he is editorial director

of the company; and therefore, he is not responsible for the publication of the

alleged defamatory news articles.

(b) In the private complaint filed by the respondent, there is no specific

averment regarding the appellant’s role in publishing the alleged defamatory

news articles, except mentioning his name as the editorial director of the company

and thus, he could not have been arraigned as an accused.

(c) Under the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, it is the "editor"

5

who controls the selection of matter published in the newspapers, besides

requiring the names of editor, printer, and publisher to be published in the print

line of the newspapers. The appellant's name does not appear in the print line of

any of the newspapers that published the news articles in question. The

designation of "Editorial Director" without any specific allegation about the

appellant's direct involvement in the publication of the impugned news articles,

cannot form the basis for criminal liability. Therefore, the appellant cannot be

held liable for the alleged offences.

(d) Section 202 Cr.P.C. as amended in 2005, mandates an inquiry before

proceeding against an accused residing outside the jurisdiction of the Magistrate

and this provision aims to prevent the harassment of persons residing at far-off

places through false complaints. In this case, the Magistrate did not examine any

other witnesses except the complainant and the statement of the complainant

manifestly fail to prove the allegation of defamation against the appellant. Hence,

the failure of complying with the mandatory provision of Section 202 Cr.P.C.

before issuing process against the appellant, who resides in Mumbai i.e., outside

the territorial jurisdiction of the Bengaluru court, vitiates the criminal proceedings

initiated against him.

(e) The complaint lacks the essential ingredients of criminal defamation

under Section 499 IPC. The explanation to the said section clearly requires that

the imputation must lower the moral or intellectual character of a person in the

estimation of others. Whereas, the complaint filed by the respondent relies solely

6

on the complainant's self-estimation of harm without any evidence from third

parties about reputational damage. Thus, the failure to establish reputational harm

in the eyes of others, renders the said complaint unsustainable.

(f) Without properly appreciating all these aspects, merely on assumption

that the appellant being the editorial director, is overseeing the contents of all the

newspapers and responsible for the publication of alleged defamatory news

articles, the High Court dismissed the criminal petition filed by the appellant, by

the order impugned herein, which has to be set aside by this Court.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant / Accused No.12 [SLP (Crl.)

No.13443/2024] made the following submissions:

(a) The order impugned herein only refers to the article dated 27.06.2014

titled “Fakes at Art Auction Raise Huge Storm” which was published on the date

of auction and was authored by Ms.Neelam Raj (Accused No.4) and it makes no

reference to the article authored by the appellant.

(b) There is no allegation that the appellant contributed or assisted or was

involved in the said article. Even in the complaint, there is only a bare allegation

that the accused have all, in connivance with one another, orchestrated a smear

campaign that is intended at ruining the reputation of the complainant and the

news articles have been engineered to appear on the date of auction. Thus, there

is a bald averment to substantiate the allegation of conspiracy.

(c) The appellant authored a completely different article titled ‘Art’s

7

Identity Crisis’, which was published on 20.07.2014 i.e., almost a month after the

auction dated 27.06.2014. She did not draw any conclusion regarding the

authenticity of the paintings that the complainant was auctioning, rather the said

article focused on the challenge of authenticating Indian art and how it depends

less on science and more on an artist’s family in India. Therefore, the appellant’s

article was not defamatory and did not constitute the offence under section

499/500 IPC.

(d) Reliance was also placed on the decisions of this Court in Aroon Purie

v. State of NCT of Delhi

6

and Iveco Magirus Brandschutztechnik GMBH v. Nirmal

Kishore Bhartiya

7

, wherein, it was held that there exists no bar that the exceptions

to section 499 IPC can be regarded only at the stage of trial.

(e) However, the High Court on the basis of the article authored by the

Accused No.4 and without having applied judicial mind to the article allegedly

authored by the appellant, erred in upholding the complaint and criminal

proceedings emanating therefrom before the Magistrate.

(f) The Magistrate except the complainant, did not examine any other

witnesses. The appellant resides in Mumbai, i.e., outside the territorial

jurisdiction of the Magistrate Court, but no inquiry was conducted before

issuance of summons, and thus, there was no substantial compliance of the

mandatory procedure under section 202 Cr.P.C. Hence, the summoning order was

6

2022 SCC OnLine SC 1491

7

(2024) 2 SCC 86

8

bad in law.

(g) Mere factual reference to another allegedly defamatory article or

recording of a third-party view by a journalist cannot be held as defamatory and

doing so would severely impact freedom of press and places the appellant in

jeopardy of being a victim of the law of land being incorrectly applied against her

and causing a miscarriage of justice.

(h) It is alleged that the complainant appears to be a serial litigator taking

recourse to the criminal process only to stifle the freedom of speech and

expression of the press when art experts began to question the authenticity of the

paintings being sold by the complainant in its auction.

(i) This Court in Bloomberg Television Production Services India Private

Limited & Ors. v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited

8

, has recognized that

the constitutional mandate of protecting journalistic expression cannot be

understated.

(j) Similar defamation complaint filed by the respondent was quashed by

this Court vide judgment dated 20.07.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1008

of 2022 arising out of SLP (Crl) No.6732/2019 titled ‘M/s. DAG Pvt. Ltd v. Bid

& Hammer Auctioneers (P) Ltd.

With these submissions, learned counsel prayed to allow the appeal and

quash the criminal proceedings initiated against this appellant.

8

2024 INSC 255

9

8. The learned counsel for the appellants / Accused Nos.8, 9, 10 and 13 [SLP

(Crl.) No. 15653 of 2024] made the following submissions:

(a) The trial court overlooked the news articles written by the appellants

and erred in issuing process only on the basis of the respondent’s interpretation

of the news articles made in the complaint and his sworn statement. Even the

High Court in the impugned order, referred to only the article written by Ms.

Neelam Raj (Accused No.4) and did not consider the news articles written by the

appellants to see whether the same were defamatory or not.

(b) The Respondent in paragraph 16 of the complaint stated that Accused

No.5-Maulik Vyas and the Appellant No.4 (Accused No.13) co-authored the

article dated 27.06.2014 in the Economic Times, however, a bare perusal of the

said article shows that it is said to be authored by Accused no 5-Maulik Vyas and

only inputs are said to have been given by Accused No.13. This article only

provides information about exchange of legal notices and mentions the comments

of the advocate of the respondent.

(c) Since all the appellants are having office/residents at Mumbai and

Kolkata i.e., outside the territorial jurisdiction, the Magistrate ought to have

conducted inquiry as required section 202 Cr.PC, by examining witnesses other

than the complainant before issuing process, which was not done.

(d) No reasons have been given in the summoning order, with respect to

delineating the role of each accused, in light of the judgement of this Court in

10

Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Others v. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others

9

.

(e) The respondent did not adduce any legal evidence and his statement

manifestly failed to prove the allegation of defamation against the appellants.

(f) The complaint was also fundamentally flawed as self-estimation is not

defamation. Since no witness has come to say that complainant has fallen in its

estimation/ no third person had come before the Magistrate to even prima facie

claim that the reputation of the Respondent had been lowered in their estimation.

Stating so, the learned counsel sought to quash the criminal proceedings

initiated against the appellants based on the private complaint filed by the

respondent.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant / Accused No.4 [SLP (Crl.) No.16153

/ 2024] made the following submissions:

(a) The appellant wrote two news articles, which were carried in different

editions using different headlines as decided by the desk. It was stated that

portions of an article get deleted as per the discretion of the editor of that edition.

The impugned order of the High Court discussed only one article and remained

completely silent on the other article of the appellant and hence, it is liable to be

set aside.

(b) The news articles merely state that experts have raised questions

without making assumptions / conclusions against the respondent and therefore,

9

(1998) 5 SCC 749

11

the same would not constitute the offence of defamation.

(c) Further, the news articles were published by the appellant in furtherance

of an article previously published in The Indian Express, which was already in

public domain, and the subsequent debate initiated by Samindranath Majumdar

on social networking websites.

(d) In the article published, the statement of various art experts and family

members of artists, such as, Rukhsana Pathan Ara, Susobhan Adhikary,

Prof.R.Sivakumar, Balaka Bhattacharjee, Ashish Anand, Rajani Prasanna Hebbar

has been quoted; and no judgment on any works of art was given by the appellant.

However, the trial court without looking into the entire contents of the

publication, issued process on the basis of the respondent’s interpretation of the

news articles in the complaint and his sworn statement.

(e) The respondent did not adduce any legal evidence and also the

statements of the complainant manifestly fail to prove the allegation of

defamation. Further, the summoning order was fundamentally flawed as no third

person had come before the Magistrate to even prima facie state that the

reputation of the respondent had been lowered in their estimation. In the absence

of this material, the very summoning order is bad in law.

(f) Without considering all these aspects, the High Court erred in

dismissing the criminal petition by the order impugned herein, which suffers from

serious and glaring infirmities and is hence, liable to be set aside.

12

10. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the complainant / respondent

submitted that the complainant enjoys a rich legacy that is enviable having been

incorporated by persons of impeccable character and reputation. In contrast, the

defamatory news articles have had a serious and adverse impact on the reputation

of the complainant company. The news articles were widely circulated and

caused considerable harm to the company’s business interests. As a result, the

company's reputation has been significantly tarnished, and its credibility has been

undermined in the eyes of its clients, partners, and the public. In light of the

substantial reputational damage caused, the respondent preferred a private

complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., against the accused for committing

defamation. The Magistrate after careful consideration of the defamatory nature

of the news articles in question, directed to register the complaint and issue

summons to the accused.

10.1. The learned counsel further submitted that the complaint itself establishes

the appellants’ role in the publication of the defamatory news articles in the

newspapers. The complainant has sufficiently outlined the defamatory nature of

the news articles, which caused harm to their reputation. The issuance of

summons by the trial Court is consistent with the legal principles governing the

stage of cognizance and process issuance, where a detailed inquiry into the merits

of the case is not required. That apart, the High Court's observations, including

those in paragraph 3 of the impugned order, are based on a prima facie

appreciation of the facts and do not amount to prejudging the case. It is well-

13

settled that at the stage of summoning, the complainant need not prove their case

beyond doubt; a mere prima facie case suffices. Thus, according to the learned

counsel, the High Court correctly dismissed the challenge to the summons and

the same need not be interfered with by this court.

11. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides and also

perused the materials available on record.

12. Vide order dated 12.08.2024

10

in SLP (Criminal) No.10212 of 2024, this

Court granted an order of interim stay of all further proceedings in connection

with Complaint Case No.18491/2016 until further orders. Similar order was

passed by this Court in SLP (Criminal) No.13443 of 2024 as well, on 14.10.2024.

Consequently, such benefit was also extended to the appellant in SLP (Criminal)

No.15653 of 2024 and the appellants in SLP (Criminal) No.16153 of 2024, vide

orders dated 11.11.2024 and 14.11.2024 respectively.

10

The petitioner is the Editorial Director of Bennett Coleman and Company Limited. Mr.R.Basant, senior counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that:

(i) The complaint lacks specific allegations of acts or omission by the petitioner (except allegations of a general

nature);

(ii) The High Court erroneously assumed that the petitioner is the Editor of all the newspapers and publications

of the Bannett Coleman and Company Ltd and is, therefore, responsible for all their contents; and

(iii) Separate individuals have been designated under Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act 1867

and hence the complaint of defamation against the petitioner was not maintainable.

3 Issue notice returnable on 9 September 2024.

4 Pending further orders, there shall be a stay of further proceedings in connection with Complaint Case No

18491/2016.

14

LEGAL PROVISIONS

13. At the outset, we refer to the relevant legal provisions applicable to the

present case, as outlined below:

(a) The Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867

Section 1 – Interpretation clause

‘Editor' means the person who controls the selection of the matter that

is published in a newspaper.

‘Newspaper’ means any printed periodical work containing public

news or comments on public news

Section 5

Rules as to publication of newspapers. No newspaper shall be

published in India, except in conformity with the rules hereinafter laid

down:

(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of section 3, every copy of every

such newspaper shall contain the names of the owner and editor thereof

printed clearly on such copy and also the date of its publication.

(2) ……"

Section 7

"Office copy of declaration to be prima facie evidence. In any legal

proceeding whatever, as well civil as criminal, the production of a copy

of such declaration as is aforesaid, attested by the seal of some Court

empowered by this Act to have the custody of such declarations, or, in

the case of the editor, a copy of the newspaper containing his name

printed on it as that of the editor shall be held (unless the contrary be

proved) to be sufficient evidence, as against the person whose name

shall be subscribed to such declaration, or printed on such newspaper,

15

as the case may be, that the said person was printer or publisher, or

printer and publisher (according as the words of the said declaration

may be) of every portion of every newspaper whereof the title shall

correspond with the title of the newspaper mentioned in the declaration,

or the editor of every portion of that issue of the newspaper of which a

copy is produced."

13.1. It is vivid from the above provisions that every newspaper must clearly

mention the names of its owner and editor, ensuring transparency in publication.

Furthermore, a statutory presumption is cast upon the editor, who is responsible

for the selection of content that is subsequently published, making him

accountable for the same unless proven otherwise.

(b) Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section 499

Defamation. Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read,

or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any

imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or

having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation

of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to

defame that person.

Explanation 1.— It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a

deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that

person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family

or other near relatives.

Explanation 2.— It may amount to defamation to make an imputation

concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as

such.

Explanation 3.— An imputation in the form of an alternative or

expressed ironically, may amount to defamation.

Explanation 4.— No imputation is said to harm a person’s reputation,

16

unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others,

lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the

character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or

lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body

of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered

as disgraceful.

Section 500

Punishment for defamation. Whoever defames another shall be

punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two

years, or with fine, or with both.

13.2. From the above provisions, it is clear that defamation under section 499

IPC necessitates both an intention to harm or knowledge that the imputation is

likely to cause harm, and that the imputation must be capable of lowering the

reputation of the person in the estimation of others. In other words, the essence

of defamation lies not merely in the making of an imputation but in its effect on

the perception of the public, thereby impacting the standing of the person in

society.

(c) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

Section 202

Postponement of issue of process.

(1) Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he

is authorised to take cognizance or which has been made over to

him under section 192 may, if he thinks fit, [and shall, in a case

where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which

he exercises his jurisdiction] [Inserted by Act 25 of 2005, Section

17

19 (w.e.f. 23-6-2006).] postpone the issue of process against the

accused, and either inquire into the case himself or direct an

investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person

as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is

sufficient ground for proceeding :

Provided that no such direction for investigation shall be made, -

(a) where it appears to the Magistrate that the offence

complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session;

or

(b) where the complaint has not been made by a Court, unless the

complainant and the witnesses present (if any) have been

examined on oath under section 200.

(2) In an inquiry under sub-section (1), the Magistrate may, if he thinks

fit, take evidence of witnesses on oath:

Provided that if it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained

of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall call upon the

complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath.

(3) If an investigation under sub-section (1) is made by a person not

being a police officer, he shall have for that investigation all the

powers conferred by this Court on an officer-in-charge of a police

station except the power to arrest without warrant.”

13.3. The above provision clearly stipulates that upon receiving a private

complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate must mandatorily conduct

an inquiry or investigation before proceeding to issue process against the accused,

if such accused resides outside the jurisdiction of the Court. In other words, the

Magistrate must examine witnesses before issuing summons in cases where the

accused resides outside the Magistrate’s jurisdiction. This mandatory

requirement of inquiry or investigation was introduced through section 19 of the

18

Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act (Central Act 25 of 2005) which

came into effect from 23.06.2006 by introducing the words ‘and shall, in a case

where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises

his jurisdiction’.

13.4. The above requirement has been eruditely elucidated by this Court in

Abhijit Pawar v. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar

11

. The relevant paragraphs of the

said judgment are extracted below:

“23. Admitted position in law is that in those cases where the accused is residing

at a place beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction, it is

mandatory on the part of the Magistrate to conduct an enquiry or investigation

before issuing the process. Section 202 CrPC was amended in the year 2005 by

the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005, with effect from

22-6-2006 by adding the words “and shall, in a case where the accused is residing

at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction”. There is a vital

purpose or objective behind this amendment, namely, to ward off false complaints

against such persons residing at a far-off places in order to save them from

unnecessary harassment. Thus, the amended provision casts an obligation on the

Magistrate to conduct enquiry or direct investigation before issuing the process,

so that false complaints are filtered and rejected. The aforesaid purpose is

specifically mentioned in the note appended to the Bill proposing the said

amendment.

24. The essence and purpose of this amendment has been captured by this Court

in Vijay Dhanuka v. Najima Mamtaj [Vijay Dhanuka v. Najima Mamtaj, (2014) 14

SCC 638: (2015) 1 SCC (Cri) 479] in the following words: (SCC p. 644, paras 11-

12)

“11. Section 202 of the Code, inter alia, contemplates postponement of the issue of

the process ‘in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in

which he exercises his jurisdiction’ and thereafter to either inquire into the case by

himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other

person as he thinks fit. In the face of it, what needs our determination is as to

whether in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which

the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction, inquiry is mandatory or not.

12. The words ‘and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond

11

(2017) 3 SCC 528

19

the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction’ were inserted by Section 19 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act (Central Act 25 of 2005) w.e.f. 23-

6-2006. The aforesaid amendment, in the opinion of the legislature, was essential

as false complaints are filed against persons residing at far-off places in order to

harass them. The note for the amendment reads as follows:

‘False complaints are filed against persons residing at far-off places simply to

harass them. In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by

unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to

make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing

beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation

to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding

out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.’

The use of the expression “shall” prima facie makes the inquiry or the

investigation, as the case may be, by the Magistrate mandatory. The word “shall”

is ordinarily mandatory but sometimes, taking into account the context or the

intention, it can be held to be directory. The use of the word “shall” in all

circumstances is not decisive. Bearing in mind the aforesaid principle, when we

look to the intention of the legislature, we find that it is aimed to prevent innocent

persons from harassment by unscrupulous persons from false complaints. Hence,

in our opinion, the use of the expression “shall” and the background and the

purpose for which the amendment has been brought, we have no doubt in our mind

that inquiry or the investigation, as the case may be, is mandatory before summons

are issued against the accused living beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the

Magistrate.”

26. The requirement of conducting enquiry or directing investigation before

issuing process is, therefore, not an empty formality. What kind of “enquiry” is

needed under this provision has also been explained in Vijay Dhanuka case [Vijay

Dhanuka v. Najima Mamtaj, (2014) 14 SCC 638: (2015) 1 SCC (Cri) 479], which

is reproduced hereunder: (SCC p. 645, para 14)

“14. In view of our answer to the aforesaid question, the next question which falls

for our determination is whether the learned Magistrate before issuing summons

has held the inquiry as mandated under Section 202 of the Code. The word

“inquiry” has been defined under Section 2(g) of the Code, the same reads as

follows:

‘2. (g) “inquiry” means every inquiry, other than a trial, conducted under this

Code by a Magistrate or court;’

It is evident from the aforesaid provision, every inquiry other than a trial

conducted by the Magistrate or the court is an inquiry. No specific mode or

manner of inquiry is provided under Section 202 of the Code. In the inquiry

envisaged under Section 202 of the Code, the witnesses are examined whereas

under Section 200 of the Code, examination of the complainant only is necessary

with the option of examining the witnesses present, if any. This exercise by the

Magistrate, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground

for proceeding against the accused, is nothing but an inquiry envisaged under

20

Section 202 of the Code.”

27. When we peruse the summoning order, we find that it does not reflect any

such inquiry. No doubt, the order mentioned that the learned Magistrate had

passed the same after reading the complaint, verification statement of the

complainant and after perusing the copies of documents filed on record i.e. FIR

translation of the complaint, affidavit of advocate who had translated the FIR

into English, etc…

28. Insofar as these two accused persons are concerned, there is no enquiry of

the nature enumerated in Section 202 CrPC.

29. The learned Magistrate did not look into the matter keeping in view the

provisions of Section 7 of the Press Act and applying his mind whether there is

any declaration qua these two persons under the said Act and, if not, on what

basis they are to be proceeded with along with the Editors. Application of mind

on this aspect was necessary. It is made clear that this Court is not suggesting

that these two accused persons cannot be proceeded with at all only because of

absence of their names in the declaration under the Press Act. What is

emphasised is that there is no presumption against these persons under Section

7 of the Press Act and they being outside the territorial jurisdiction of the

Magistrate concerned, the Magistrate was required to apply his mind on these

aspects while passing summoning orders qua A-1 and A-2.

DISCUSSIONS AND FINDINGS

14. It appears to us that the complainant / respondent herein preferred a single

complaint against 14 accused for different news articles written on different dates

and published in different editions in different States of the Country, viz., Delhi,

Kolkata, Mumbai, Bangalore and Pune. Upon receipt of the complaint, the

respondent was examined and his sworn statement was recorded. Thereafter, the

Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint and directed to register the same and

issue summons to the accused. Consequently, the company (A1) and the

appellants herein preferred criminal petition before the High Court to quash the

criminal proceedings initiated against them. Vide order dated 18.06.2024, the

21

High Court quashed the complaint only in respect of the Accused No.1 – Bennett

Coleman and Co. Ltd., and dismissed the criminal petition insofar as the

appellants are concerned. Therefore, these criminal appeals are filed by the

appellants.

15. According to the complainant / respondent herein, the defamatory news

articles printed, published and circulated by all the accused caused readers to view

the complainant with suspicion and also fostered an unjustifiable and unfounded

public opinion that the works offered for sale by the complainant through public

auction could be fake. It was further alleged in the complaint that the second

accused being the editorial director of the company (A1), oversaw the contents

of the newspapers and was responsible for news articles’ publication; and all

other accused, in connivance with each other published various news articles in

various newspapers with an intent to scuttle the success of the complainant’s

auction by harming its reputation or lowering its image in the estimation of the

public, thereby committing the offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500

IPC.

16. On the other hand, the appellants entirely refuted the allegations raised in

the complaint filed by the respondent. While they have commonly contended that

the Magistrate failed to comply with the procedure mandated under section 202

Cr.P.C., their individual responses to the specific allegations regarding their

22

respective publications are tabulated below for ease of reference:

Name of the

appellant /

accused

Details of

Publication

Responses to the allegations

Jaideep Bose –

A2

SLP (Crl.) No.

10212/2024

Editorial

Director of

the Company

(A1)

He neither authored nor was connected

with the publication of the alleged news

articles and hence, he cannot be held

liable for the same.

Nergish

Sunavala – A12

SLP (Crl.) No.

13443/2024

20.07.2014

Times of

India

The article pertaining to the appellant

was purely based on existing public

discourse and previously published

material by other reputed sources. There

was no intention to defame the

respondent and the article was aimed at

informing the public about matters of

significant interest and concern. No

Judgment or any insinuations was made.

Swati

Deshpande –

A8

Appellant No.1

in SLP (Crl.)

No.15653/2024

28.06.2014

Times of

India Mumbai

The article on the face of it, is not

defamatory. A holistic reading of the

article rather shows that a balanced view

was taken as it merely presents the views

of all parties concerned, including the

complainant. There is nothing in the

article to suggest any intention or

knowledge of causing disrepute to the

complainant.

Shubro Niyogi

– A9

Appellant No.2

in SLP (Crl.)

No.15653/2024

29.06.2014

Times of

India, Kolkata

The article nowhere mentions the name

of the complainant, rather only reports on

calls by art experts for the creation of a

panel of experts to scrutinize authenticity

of artworks. There was no intention to

disrepute the complainant. When read in

its entirety, the article cannot be

considered as defamatory.

Ratnottam

Sengupta –

06.07.2014

Times of

A reading of article shows that it merely

reports on the controversy surrounding

23

A10

Appellant No.3

in SLP (Crl.)

No.15653/2024

India

Kolkata

artworks and in a balanced manner,

includes the comments and the position

of the complainant, while also presenting

the views of various other experts in the

art-field. The reading of the article in its

entirety does not constitute defamation.

Rashmi Menon

– A13

Appellant No.4

in SLP (Crl.)

No.15653/2024

27.06.2014

Economic

Times, New

Delhi

The article clearly shows that the

appellant only gave certain inputs.

Regardless, a reading of the article shows

that it merely reports on M. F. Hussain

Foundation having sent a legal notice to

the complainant, while also displaying

the response of the complainant, which at

that time had expressed that it was not

aware of such notice. This article in no

manner can be said to be defamatory.

Neelam Raj –

A4

Appellant in

SLP (Crl.) No.

16153/2024

27.06.2014

Times of

India,

Bangalore

27.06.2014

Times of

India, New

Delhi

27.06.2014,

Times of

India,Mumbai

27.06.2014

Times of

India, Pune

28.06.2014

Times of

India,

Bangalore

A reading of the news articles authored

by the appellant cannot be said to be

defamatory. These news articles, read in

their entirety, merely report on the views

of art experts and cautions people at large

regarding fake art and nothing more.

None of the news articles, suggests that

there was any intention to harm the

complainant’s reputation.

24

17. Before appreciating the rival contentions, it is necessary to look into the

specific allegations raised in the complaint against each of the appellants, which

are extracted as under:

“2. ……The second accused is the editorial director of the first accused. The

third accused is the executive editor of the first accused. The second and third

accused oversee the content of the newspapers and are responsible for the

contents….

12. On 27.06.2014, the fourth accused, Ms. Neelam Raj, wrote an article that

carried the headline, "Fakes at Art Auction Raise Huge Storm". On the front page

of the Times of India, Bangalore Edition itself and right under this headline, there

is a reference to the complainant by name. The article continues on page 14 with

another headline, "Biggest Counterfeit Indian Art Controversy Hits Auction".

Under this headline, there are further states, "A copy or two has cropped up in the

most respected of auction houses but Bangalore based Bid and Hammer's

forthcoming auction has been assailed by what perhaps is the biggest controversy

to come to light in the Indian art market". The article also alleges that the accused

tried to contact the complainant's chairman, but was unsuccessful. The

complainant never received such calls and it is unethical and wrong to publish an

article without even clarifying the facts. It also asserts that the complainant was

"caught" in a similar controversy in 2010 over the work of a Souza work. Further,

incidents and works that have nothing to do with the complainant are narrated,

giving the reader the impression that the complainant is involved in these works

also and is a habitual dealer in fake arts and paintings…

13. These allegations and insinuations are clearly and palpably false and

render a highly negative image of the works brought to auction by the complainant

after extensive study and verification at considerable cost and despite the highly

credible process of authentication of each work brought out on auction. The

allegations also defame eminent consignors such as granddaughter of Maharaja of

Burdwan, Namrata Shirodkar and Mahesh Babu and others.

14. On 27.06.2014 itself, the fourth accused, Ms. Neelam Raj, further authored

similar insinuations in the Delhi, Mumbai, and Pune editions of the Times of India

under the heading, "Controversy Over Fakes Hits Art Auction" on the front page.

On the 12th page of the same edition under the headline, "Experts Question

Authenticity of Signatures dates in auction Art"…

15. The said accused followed this up with another defamatory article on

28.06.2014, the day after the auction with the headline, "More Fake Trouble for

Indian Art Mart. The article starts with the words, "Fake" alleging that it continued

25

to cause a tizzy in the art world especially concerning the works featured in the

auction of the complainant.

16. On 27.06.2014, the fifth accused. Mr. Maulik Vyas and Ms. Rashmi Menon,

the thirteenth accused, co-authored an article in the Economic Times with the

headline, "Legal Notice Over Fake Hussains” including on the first page. The

article refers to a legal notice issued to the complainant on the very day that the

notice was sent and even before it was received by the complainant. This clearly

shows the intention of the article was to defame the complainant, knowing fully well

that readers of the Economic Times include leading industrialists, who are well

known connoisseurs to art and potential customers of the complainant…. It is

pertinent to note that the said two accused conveniently ignored the rebuttal and

clarifications issued by the complainant against the false charges levelled on the

complainant, despite this rebuttal being sent to them well in time for publication

the following day. This shows the mala fide intent to defame the complainant, in

fact. Subsequently, the thirteenth accused, Ms. Rashmi Menon, confirmed receipt

of the rebuttal from the complainant. When asked why she did not publish the

rebuttal, she stopped replying / corresponding with the complainant. This shows

the mala fide intent to defame the complainant.

18. On 13.06.2014, the eighth accused, Ms. Swati Deshpande, authored an

article in the Times of India, Mumbai Edition with the headline, "Auction House

Denies 22 Hussain Works are Fake". The article refers to the details of the legal

notice and reply, thus casting doubts over the work of the complainant. This is an

insinuation that has tarnished the image of the complainant.

19. On 29.06.2014, the ninth accused Mr. Shubro Niyogi, authored an article

in the Times of India, Kolkata Edition insinuates that the auction held by the

complainant contained fakes. The mala fide intention of the ninth accused is clearly

established from the fact that the paintings published in support of the article were

not even featured in the catalogue as they did not form part of the auction. So the

accused was not even aware of the paintings at the auction but took it upon himself

to call them fakes. This insinuation has tarnished the image of the complainant.

20. On 06.07.2014, the tenth accused. Mr. Rathnotham Sengupta, authored an

article in the Times of India, Kolkata Edition, with the headlines "Who Speaks the

Last Word on Fakes". The article specifically insinuates that Lots 82 and 83 of the

auction held by the complainant were identified as fakes. This insinuation has

tarnished the image of the complainant.

22. 20.07.2014, the Twelfth accused, Ms. Nargish Sunavala, authored an

article in the Times of India, Bangalore Edition, insinuating that the works

auctioned by the complainant do not have proper authenticity certificates,

26

deliberately suppressing the crucial processes involved in the complainant's

auction, which was in the public domain. This insinuation has tarnished the image

of the complainant.”

18. It is not in dispute that the appellant (A2) Jaideep Bose is the Editorial

Director of the company and other appellants are authors of the alleged

defamatory news articles published in various newspapers. The respondent filed

a single private complaint against the accused for committing the offence of

defamation.

19. Let us first deal with the case of the appellant (A2) Jaideep Bose, who

stands on a different footing from the other accused. He is serving as the Editorial

Director of the company, which is the owner of all the newspapers in question.

According to him, he is neither the author nor the editor of the news articles in

question and his role is merely administrative in nature, with no direct

involvement in the publication process. He further states that there was

procedural irregularity in the process of issuance of summons as he resides in

Mumbai, which falls outside the jurisdiction of the Court, and hence, the

Magistrate was required to conduct an inquiry by examining witnesses as

mandated under Section 202 Cr.P.C.

19.1. As already reiterated, it is the editor who plays a key role in the publication

process bearing responsibility for ensuring that the content published adheres to

27

legal standards, including laws surrounding defamation. It is well settled that the

Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (“the Act”) imposes a higher degree

of responsibility and liability on an editor. Section 5 of the Act mandates that

every newspaper or periodical publication must specify the name of the editor

and owner. Section 7 creates a rebuttable presumption that the editor whose name

is printed in the newspaper shall be held to be the editor in any civil or criminal

proceedings in respect of that publication. Since an “editor” has been defined as

the person who controls the selection of the matter that is published in a

newspaper, the presumption goes to the extent of holding that he was the person,

who controlled the selection of the matter that was published in the newspaper.

However, merely because the Act does not mention persons holding other roles

in a publication of the company, such as an Editorial Director, or mandate the

publication of their names, the same does not imply that such persons cannot be

made liable for any defamatory content. The key distinction is that unlike an

editor, against whom a statutory presumption is imposed, there is no such

presumption against the editorial director at the outset [See: K.M. Mathew v. K.A.

Abraham

12

].

19.2. Turning to the complaint, which is also necessary in it, are specific

allegations regarding the role of the accused in the publication process. This Court

12

2002 (6) SCC 670

28

in Gambhirsinh R. Dekare v. Falgunbhai Chimanbhai Patel

13

observed that while

the Act does not recognise any other legal entity viz. Chief Editor, Managing

Editor, etc. for raising a presumption, such individuals can still be proceeded

against, but only when specific allegations are made against them. In the present

case, the complaint merely alleges that the appellant (A2) oversaw the

publications. No other averments were made to establish as to how the appellant

(A2) was responsible for controlling the selection of contents of the newspaper

publications. Furthermore, as already stated above, he is the editorial director of

the company and not of the individual newspapers. Thus, in our view, such a

broad, general or blanket statement without specific or substantive details cannot

justify the issuance of summons.

19.3. The Magistrate, without a proper examination and inquiry, proceeded to

issue summons to the appellant (A2). It is also pertinent to note here that the

appellant (A2) resides in Mumbai, which falls outside the jurisdiction of the

concerned Magistrate. In such a scenario, as discussed earlier, the Magistrate was

required to proceed with the complaint in accordance with section 202(1) Cr.P.C.

However, no such inquiry was conducted in the present case. Therefore,

considering all these aspects, we are of the opinion that the complaint is not

maintainable against the appellant (A2).

13

(2013) 3 SCC 697

29

20. Regarding the appellants in the other appeals, it is evident from the orders

of the trial Court as well as the High Court that not all news articles individually

authored by the various accused were considered. While passing the impugned

order, the High Court referred only to one article authored by Ms. Neelam Raj

(A4) and neither took into account nor discussed the other news articles authored

by the remaining accused. Furthermore, the mandatory procedure under section

202 Cr.P.C., was clearly not followed. The Appellants viz., A8, A9, A10, A12

and A13 reside in Mumbai / Kolkata, whereas the complaint was filed in

Bangalore. The complainant failed to produce any witness to prima facie establish

that the alleged imputations had lowered their reputation in the estimation of

others and the Magistrate, after merely reviewing the complainant’s statement,

proceeded to issue summons. Thus, the Magistrate’s order clearly suffers from

procedural irregularity. Ordinarily, such irregularities would warrant a remand.

However, in the present case, the auction was conducted on 27.06.2014 and the

complaint was filed on 22.08.2014. No material has also been placed before us to

suggest that the auction was unsuccessful or that any damage or loss was actually

caused, due to the alleged news articles published in the newspapers. Irrespective

of the same, at this stage, remanding the matter for fresh examination of witnesses

before issuance of summons would serve no useful purpose, given the remote

likelihood of securing witnesses. It would only prolong the litigation yielding

little to no benefit especially, since the auction has already concluded and more

than a decade has passed. We also take note of the submissions of the learned

30

counsel for the appellants that there is no intent to defame or harm the

complainant’s reputation. Notably, this Court vide common order dated

20.07.2022 titled ‘M/s.DAG Pvt. Ltd. V. M/s.Bid & Hammer Auctioneers (P) Ltd.’

allowed similar criminal appeals bearing Nos. 1008/2022 etc. cases, arising from

the complaint filed by the same complainant. In view of the above stated reasons,

to meet the ends of justice, we are inclined to quash the order passed by the High

Court as well as the issuance of summons by the Magistrate. Consequently, the

criminal proceedings initiated against the appellants are also liable to be quashed.

21. Before parting, we find it necessary to emphasise that right to freedom of

speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of

India is paramount. At the same time, it is reiterated that those working in the

media, particularly, individuals in key positions, authors, etc., must exercise

utmost caution and responsibility before publishing any statements, news, or

opinions. The power of the media in shaping public opinion is significant and the

press possesses the ability to influence public sentiments and alter perceptions,

with remarkable speed. As aptly stated by Bulwer Lytton, “The Pen is mightier

than the sword”. Given its vast reach, a single article or report can resonate with

millions, shaping their beliefs and judgments, and it has the capability to cause

severe damage to the reputation of those concerned, with consequences that may

be far-reaching and enduring. This highlights the critical need for accuracy and

fairness in media reporting, especially when dealing with matters having the

31

potential to impact the integrity of individuals or institutions. Keeping these

aspects in mind, publication of the news articles must be done in public interest

and with good faith.

22. With the aforesaid observations, we allow all these appeals and quash the

impugned order passed by the High Court and summoning orders as well as the

criminal complaint filed by the respondent, as far as the appellants herein are

concerned. Connected Miscellaneous Application(s), if any, shall stand disposed

of.

……………………… J.

[J.B. Pardiwala]

…………………… J.

[R. Mahadevan]

NEW DELHI,

FEBRUARY 18, 2025.