CRL.M.C. 6012/2025 & connected matter Page 1 of 41

$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment reserved on: 17.03.2026

Judgment pronounced on: 01.06.2026

Judgment uploaded on: 01.06.2026

+ CRL.M.C. 6012/2025 & CRL.M.A. 25570/2025

SAMIR KUMAAR MODI .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Sidharth Agarwal, Senior

Advocate with Ms. Simran

Lakhwinder Singh, Mr.

Toyesh Tewari, Mr. Agastya

Sen and Mr. Sharya Mittal,

Advocates.

versus

NIRMALA BAGRI .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Mohit Mathur, Senior

Advocate with Mr. Karan

Sharma and Mr. Mohit

Siwach, Advocates.

+ CRL.M.C. 6013/2025 & CRL.M.A. 25572/2025

SAMIR KUMAAR MODI .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Sidharth Agarwal, Senior

Advocate with Ms. Simran

Lakhwinder Singh, Mr.

Toyesh Tewari, Mr. Agastya

Sen and Mr. Sharya Mittal,

Advocates.

versus

ATUL KUMAR GUPTA .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Mohit Mathur, Senior

Advocate with Mr. Karan

CRL.M.C. 6012/2025 & connected matter Page 2 of 41

Sharma and Mr. Mohit

Siwach, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

J U D G M E N T

Index to the Judgment

FACTUAL BACKGROUND ................................................................... 3

RIVAL CONTENTIONS ....................................................................... 9

ANALYSIS & FINDINGS .................................................................... 13

A. Grievance of the Complainants ................................................................ 14

B. The Alleged Defamatory News Articles .................................................. 14

C. Analysing the Alleged Defamatory Material ............................................ 19

D. FIR stood registered on the complaint of the Petitioner ....................... 21

E. Reporting of contents of a police complaint/FIR by news agencies viz.

offence of defamation ........................................................................................ 23

F. Exception 8 to Section 499 of the IPC .................................................... 35

G. Whether the Impugned Order is liable to be set aside? ......................... 38

H. Conclusion ................................................................................................... 40

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J

1. By way of this judgment, this Court shall be disposing of two

connected petitions preferred by the petitioner, inasmuch as although

they assail orders passed in two different complaint cases, the

contents of the orders and the factual matrix of the dispute are the

same.

2. As set out in the petitions, the petitioner is a businessman, who

served as the Executive Director of Godfrey Philips India Ltd.

[hereafter ‗GPIL‘] from January 1994 until September 2024. The

respondents herein had preferred separate criminal complaints under

CRL.M.C. 6012/2025 & connected matter Page 3 of 41

Sections 190(1)(a) and 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

[hereafter ‗Cr.P.C.‘], read with Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 [hereafter ‗IPC‘], i.e., Ct. Case No. 4138/2024

filed by respondent Atul Kumar Gupta and Ct. Case No. 4139/2024

filed by respondent Nirmala Bagri.

3. The said complaints were dismissed vide separate but identical

orders dated 19.05.2025 passed by the learned ACJM, South East,

Saket Courts, Delhi [hereafter ‗Magistrate‘]. In revision petitions

preferred by the respondents, i.e., Crl. Revision No. 353/2025 filed

by respondent Nirmala Bagri and Crl. Revision No. 354/2025 filed

by respondent Atul Kumar Gupta, the learned ASJ-02, South East,

Saket Courts, Delhi [hereafter ‗Sessions Court‘] passed separate but

identical impugned orders dated 14.08.2025, whereby the orders of

the learned Magistrate were set aside and the revisions were allowed.

The learned Magistrate was also directed to summon the present

accused. In view thereof, the learned Magistrate was pleased to issue

summons to the petitioner vide the impugned order dated 18.08.2025.

4. The petitioner thus seeks to assail the impugned orders dated

14.08.2025 and 18.08.2025.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

5. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that on

30.05.2024, meetings of the Audit Committee and Board of Directors

of GPIL were held at the company‘s office in Jasola, Delhi. The

petitioner, being a Director and invitee, had arrived to attend the

meetings. At the moment of entry to the boardroom, the personal

CRL.M.C. 6012/2025 & connected matter Page 4 of 41

security officer of one Mrs. Bina Modi (the petitioner‘s mother),

allegedly acting on her instructions, had obstructed his entry and had

assaulted him, causing a fracture to his right index finger. Thereafter,

the petitioner was immediately taken to Apollo Hospital, where the

MLC confirmed the fracture. Pursuant thereto, on 31.05.2024, the

petitioner had lodged a written complaint at Police Station Sarita

Vihar. Based on the complaint, MLC, and CCTV footage, an FIR

bearing No. 219/2024 was registered for the commission of offences

punishable under Sections 325 and 341 of IPC.

6. Subsequently, on 20.06.2024, the respondent Atul Kumar

Gupta and on 25.06.2024, the respondent Nirmala Bagri [hereafter

collectively referred to as ―respondents‖] had filed Ct. Case No.

4138/2024 and Ct. Case No. 4139/2024 respectively for commission

of offence punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC against the

petitioner, alleging defamation on the basis of a newspaper report in

The Economic Times and eventual amplification thereof by the media

in form of newspaper reports, clipping and interviews, bearing

reference to the alleged incident, which purportedly attributed certain

statements to the petitioner. The complainant had examined

themselves as well as two other witnesses each, in the pre-

summoning evidence.

7. Vide identical orders dated 19.05.2025, the learned Magistrate,

considering the material placed on record before him, dismissed both

the complaints under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C., holding that the

newspaper report was hearsay and the alleged defamatory statements

CRL.M.C. 6012/2025 & connected matter Page 5 of 41

were extracted from the petitioner‘s police complaint, falling within

Exception 8 to Section 499 of the IPC, and that the essential

ingredients of defamation – publication by the accused, intent to

harm, and lowering of reputation – were not prima facie made out.

The relevant portion of order dated 19.05.2025 is set out below:

―16. In the present case, the statements allegedly made by the

respondent were part of a complaint submitted to the police —

a lawful authority empowered to receive such grievances.

There is no material on record to suggest that the complaint

was made in bad faith or with malice. The complaint appears to

have been made in the course of asserting legal rights and

safeguarding personal interests.

17. Treating such lawful recourse as defamatory would be

contrary to the intent of the law and would open the floodgates

for litigation that undermines the freedom to seek legal redress.

If every person making a complaint to lawful authority risks

criminal prosecution for defamation, it would effectively deter

citizens from accessing justice — a consequence clearly not

contemplated by the drafters of the IPC.

18. In addition, from a plane reading of the impugned

statement, even assuming to have been made, they do not

appear to be defamatory in nature. The statements seem to have

been made in an explanatory and precautionary manner,

possibly in the backdrop of ongoing disputes and litigation

between the parties. There is no direct or explicit imputation

against the complainant that could be deemed to harm his

reputation or character in the estimation of right thinking

members of society.

19. The existence of pre-existing litigation and strained

relations between the parties also lends credence to the

possibility that the respondent was merely clarifying his stance

in a matter already under public discourse. Mere statements of

clarification or defensive articulation in absence of any

malicious or false imputation, cannot be presumed to constitute

defamation.

20. It is well settled that not every statement that may hurt a

person‘s feelings or cause discomfort amounts to defamation

under criminal law. The court must be satisfied that the

statements in question are not only defamatory in nature, but

CRL.M.C. 6012/2025 & connected matter Page 6 of 41

are also made with the requisite mens rea i.e., an intention or

knowledge to harm the reputation of another.

21. In the present matter, the statements in the interview do not

reflect any such intent. There is no prima facie evidence of any

statement that could be categorically termed as demeaning,

malicious, or defamatory in law.

22. In view of the above, the court is of considered opinion that

material placed on record does not disclose sufficient grounds

to proceed under section 499/500 IPC. Consequently, the

complaint is dismissed under section 203 Cr.P.C.‖

8. Subsequent thereto, the respondents herein had preferred

revision petitions i.e. Crl. Revision Nos. 353/2025 (by Nirmala

Bagri) and 354/2025 (by Atul Kumar Gupta), before learned Sessions

Court, who, vide impugned order dated 14.08.2025, set aside the

order of dismissal of complaint passed by the learned Magistrate and

directed issuance of summons in the present case to the petitioner

herein. For reference, the relevant portion of the impugned order

dated 14.08.2025, passed in Crl. Revision Nos. 353/2025 is set out

below:

―40. From the aforesaid testimonies, it can be clearly

ascertained that the allegations which were circulated in the

newspaper were widely read by the people known to the

complainant. The alleged article Ex.CWI/A of Economic

Times categorically mentions that it was the interview which

was given by the respondent and the entire reporting was

pertaining to the conversation of the reporter with the

respondent in which there were remarks like ―Accusing his

mother, her personal security officer (PSO) and Board

Members of the Cigarette and Confectionary Makers of

causing him grievous hurt ........‖' Further, Modi has said in his

complaint to Sarita Vihar Police Station ―my mother and Mr.

Bhasin orchestrated this assault and the other Board Members

were consenting parties to this assault‖ The aforesaid

imputations were published in the newspaper during an

interview given by the respondent and did cause harm to the

CRL.M.C. 6012/2025 & connected matter Page 7 of 41

reputation of the complainant as she was a person of repute.

The aforesaid witnesses examined by the complainant and the

documents relied upon by them are sufficient to explain the

impact which it caused on the reputation of the complainant.

Further, the aforesaid imputations which were published were

within the definition of Sec. 499 IPC and the stage of

summoning, cannot be given benefit of Exception 8 of Sec. 499

IPC. Further, to spell out defamation out of written matter, the

whole writing is to be considered, not to much importance is to

be attached to isolated paragraphs. Further, the identity of the

complainant with the object defamed is required to be

established and since the complainant was a member of the

Board Committee of famous company, it was not difficult to

establish her identity from the publication in the newspaper.

With the aforesaid publication, the description of the event and

the attended circumstances suggests with fair certainty, the

identity of the complainant which the respondent wanted to

defame, it is sufficient to infer the commission of offence of

defamation. Further, when the defamation by slander is

alleged, the exact words used by the accused need not be

proved at the time of pre-summoning evidence and the same

may be brought on record subsequently by the complainant. It

is sufficient for the purposes of summoning, if witnesses are

agreed in a substantial measure on the words of imputation

uttered as it is hardly possible or necessary to reproduce every

word or expression used, but the position is different when the

complainant produces the document along-with the complaint,

containing the imputation, as the complainant in the present

matter has relied upon the newspaper reporting and had

supported the same with the certificate u/sec. 65B of the Indian

Evidence Act. If the accused pleads any exception, he must

justify the same during trial and the same cannot be taken into

consideration at the time of summoning. More so, in the

present matter at the time of inquiry u/sec. 202 CrPC, the Ld.

Trial Court was only required to see if there were sufficient

evidence to summon the accused persons and if Ld. Trial Court

require to ascertain or clarify or inquire upon any further facts,

could have given the opportunity to the complainant to

examine all of its witnesses. Further, in the present matter, the

complainant has categorically mentioned in the list of

witnesses the name of the newspaper reporter who had taken

the interview of the respondent along-with other witnesses and

therefore the complainant can examine the witnesses to

substantiate her claims even at the stage of trial and the

aforesaid opportunity cannot be snatched from the complainant

CRL.M.C. 6012/2025 & connected matter Page 8 of 41

at the nascent stage. Further, Ld. Trial Court erred by

observing that there were litigation pending between the parties

that is when there are no pending cases between the

complainant and the respondent and therefore any such

observations at the stage of summoning was not required to be

made by Ld. Trial Court. Since, the article was published in the

newspaper and it mentioned that the interview was given by the

respondent and the same was pertaining to the Board Members

of GPIL and the same being a collection of persons and is

absolutely identifiable and distinguishable from the rest of the

community and as per the alleged imputation was prevalent

towards the board members, therefore prima facie every

employee of the Board including the complainant can

reasonably be believed to have been defamed by such

imputations. Sec. 499 IPC defines defamation and provides

inter-alia that whoever makes or publishes any imputation

concerning any person entailing to harm or knowing or having

reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation

of such person is set to defame the person and does include that

it may amount to defamation if it is made concerning a

company or an association or collection of persons as such.

Therefore, it is clear that there could be defamation of an

individual person and also of collection of persons. The

language of Explanation 2 to the aforesaid section in general

and any collection of persons would be covered by it, of course

that collection of persons must be identifiable with certainty

and therefore in the present matter, it was the complainant

being the member of the Board of Directors who were present

during the meeting and was identifiable. Since the complainant

belongs to the group of persons would be covered by

Explanation 2 and could therefore be the subject of defamation

and the mens-rea for the same can be inferred from the fact that

the respondent had given his interview to the reporter and the

same was published on the very next day of the incident for

which he had filed his complaint with the police authorities.

Therefore, in my considered view in the present matter, there is

prima facie sufficient evidence to summon the respondent/

accused for the offence punishable u/sec. 500 IPC.

41. Considering aforesaid appreciation of the facts and

circumstances of this case and also the case laws, the impugned

order dated 19.05.2025 passed by Ld. Trial Court, stands set

aside. The present revision petition stands allowed.

42. Accordingly, Ld. Trial Court is directed to summon the

accused/ respondent and proceed further as per law.‖

CRL.M.C. 6012/2025 & connected matter Page 9 of 41

9. Consequently, the learned Magistrate issued summons to the

petitioner under Section 204 of the Cr.P.C. vide order dated

18.08.2025, passed in both the complaint case, which is extracted

hereunder:

― Vide order dated 14.08.2025, Ld. Sessions Court has set

aside order dated 19.05.2025 passed by Ld. Predecessor of this

Court thereby the present complaint was dismissed u/s 203 Cr.

PC.

Ld. Sessions Court is directed this court to summon against

accused for offence punishable u/s 500 IPC. In view of the

order, summons be issued to accused through all modes,

returnable for NDOH.

Put up on 13.11.2025.‖

RIVAL CONTENTIONS

10. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner argues

that the present complaint cases are nothing but counterblast to FIR

No. 219/2024 registered on the complaint of the petitioner. It is

submitted that the principal dispute is between the petitioner and his

mother, Dr. Bina Modi, against whom allegations were levelled by

the petitioner and who is one of the principal accused persons in the

said FIR. It is contended that the respondents herein have sought to

interject themselves into a dispute in which they were never

specifically named by the petitioner, either in the FIR, in his

complaint to the police, or in any interview allegedly given by him. It

is further argued that permitting criminal defamation proceedings to

be initiated merely because allegations made in a police complaint

have subsequently found mention in a news report would have far-

CRL.M.C. 6012/2025 & connected matter Page 10 of 41

reaching consequences and would result in a flood of retaliatory

litigation, and thus, create a chilling effect on persons seeking to

approach law enforcement authorities with genuine grievances. The

learned senior counsel further submits that the learned Sessions Court

exceeded the scope of revisional jurisdiction while passing the

impugned order. It is argued that the learned Magistrate, after

considering the material on record, had dismissed the complaint, and

the learned Sessions Court could not have substituted her own

satisfaction for that of the learned Magistrate by re-appreciating the

entire material. It is further contended that even assuming the learned

Sessions Court disagreed with the view taken by the learned

Magistrate, it could at best have remanded the matter for fresh

consideration and could not have directed issuance of summons

against the petitioner. It is also submitted that the proceedings suffer

from a jurisdictional defect since cognizance was taken without

compliance with the requirement of notice contemplated under

Section 223(1) of the BNSS.

11. On merits, the learned senior counsel argues that no prima

facie offence of defamation is made out against the petitioner. It is

argued that the respondents‘ grievance is confined to a single

statement appearing in a newspaper article, which was nothing but a

verbatim reproduction of the allegations contained in the police

complaint lodged by the petitioner. It is contended that the statement

did not specifically name or identify either of the respondents and

merely referred to ―other present board members‖. Therefore, it is

contended that the essential ingredients of Section 499 of IPC are not

CRL.M.C. 6012/2025 & connected matter Page 11 of 41

satisfied. It is also argued that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit

of Exception 8 to Section 499 of IPC even at the stage of

summoning, since the statement formed part of a complaint made to

lawful authorities in relation to an alleged cognizable offence. The

learned senior counsel also submits that the entire complaint is

founded upon a newspaper report, which is hearsay and not

substantive evidence of the alleged publication by the petitioner. It is

argued that apart from relying upon the newspaper article, the

respondents have not placed any material on record to establish that

the petitioner had independently published or circulated the alleged

imputation. In these circumstances, it is contended that the

continuation of the present proceedings would amount to an abuse of

the process of law and that the impugned orders deserve to be set

aside.

12. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel appearing for the

respondents argues that the learned Sessions Court has committed no

error in setting aside the order dated 19.05.2025 passed by the

learned Magistrate, as the said order was based on erroneous factual

assumptions and incorrect legal propositions. It is argued that the

learned Magistrate, while dismissing the complaints, had referred to

alleged pre-existing disputes, strained relations, and pending

litigations between the parties, despite there being no such averments

in the complaints and no material on record suggesting any dispute

whatsoever between the petitioner and the respondents. It is

contended that, at the stage of summoning, the learned Magistrate

was required to confine himself to the complaint and the material

CRL.M.C. 6012/2025 & connected matter Page 12 of 41

produced by the complainants and could not have relied upon

extraneous considerations. The learned Sessions Court, therefore,

rightly interfered with the order and directed issuance of summons. It

is further submitted that the learned Magistrate erred in proceeding

on the assumption that the impugned article merely reproduced

extracts from the petitioner‘s police complaint. Attention is drawn to

the article itself, wherein it is specifically recorded that ―Modi told

ET‖, indicating that the statements were made by the petitioner to the

newspaper. It is argued that the police complaint itself was not part of

the pre-summoning record and, therefore, the learned Magistrate

could not have presumed that the article was based upon or

reproduced from the complaint. The learned senior counsel contends

that statements voluntarily made to media houses do not fall within

the ambit of Exceptions 8 or 9 to Section 499 of IPC, since a media

organisation cannot be treated as a lawful authority contemplated

under the said provision.

13. The learned senior counsel further contends that, at the stage of

summoning, the Court is only required to ascertain whether a prima

facie case is disclosed from the complaint and the material produced

by the complainant. It is argued that the complainants had duly

placed on record the relevant material, including a certificate under

Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, and that examination of the

concerned reporter was not necessary at that stage. It is also argued

that the truth or otherwise of the allegations and the source of the

publication are matters to be examined during trial. As regards the

contention based on Section 223 of the BNSS, it is submitted that the

CRL.M.C. 6012/2025 & connected matter Page 13 of 41

same is misconceived since the complaint cases were instituted on

25.06.2024, prior to the coming into force of the BNSS on

01.07.2024. It is argued that the proceedings were, therefore,

governed by the provisions of the Cr.P.C., and no pre-cognizance

hearing was required to be afforded to the petitioner. It is also argued

that the statements attributed to the petitioner portray the respondents

as persons who had consented to and facilitated a violent assault for

monetary or other vested interests, and thus, seriously damaged their

reputation. It is contended that the petitioner voluntarily chose to

publicise these allegations through various media platforms despite

the respondents not being named as accused in the FIR or the charge-

sheet filed pursuant thereto. It is therefore argued that the impugned

order suffers from no infirmity and the present petitions are liable to

be set aside.

14. This Court has heard arguments addressed on behalf of the

petitioner as well as the respondents, and has carefully perused the

material available on record.

ANALYSIS & FINDINGS

15. The issue that arises for consideration before this Court is

whether, on the basis of the material placed on record, a prima facie

case is made out against the petitioner so as to justify his summoning

for the offence of defamation under Section 499/500 of IPC.

CRL.M.C. 6012/2025 & connected matter Page 14 of 41

A. Grievance of the Complainants

16. This Court has carefully perused the contents of the complaints

filed by both the complainants/respondents herein before the learned

Magistrate. A reading thereof makes it evident that the grievance of

the respondents and the foundation of the allegation of defamation

against the petitioner, is confined to a single statement appearing in a

news article published in The Economic Times (Delhi Edition)

newspaper on 01.06.2024. The respondents allege that the

defamatory imputation is contained in the line stating that ―the other

present board members were consenting parties to this assault.‖ For

reference, the first paragraph of each of the complaints, filed by

respondents, mentions as under:

―1. ...The defamatory statement made by the Accused stating

that ―the other present board members were consenting parties

to this assault‖ was part of an interview given by Accused…‖

17. Similarly, paragraph 7 of their complaints, refers to the

following content as defamatory towards them:

―7. The defamatory content…… set out hereinbelow:

“My mother and Mr. Bhasin orchestrated this assault and

the other present board members were consenting parties

to this assault ...These people are very influential and

moneyed and will attempt to derail the process...”

B. The Alleged Defamatory News Articles

18. In order to appreciate the rival submissions advanced on behalf

of the parties, it would be apposite to notice the context in which the

above statements appeared in the news articles.

CRL.M.C. 6012/2025 & connected matter Page 15 of 41

19. This Court notes that the impugned news article, published in

The Economic Times (Delhi Edition) newspaper on 01.06.2024,

carried out reporting on a complaint lodged by the petitioner with the

Delhi Police concerning an alleged physical altercation that took

place when he had attempted to attend a scheduled board meeting of

GPIL. The entire content of the said news article is set out below:

―SAMIR MODI FILES POLICE COMPLAINT AGAINST

MOTHER BINA AND OTHERS

Says he was assaulted when he tried to enter the board meeting of

Godfrey Phillips

By Kala Vijayraghavan & Rashmi Rajput

Mumbai: Godfrey Phillips executive director Samir Modi, the

younger son of KK Modi and Bina Modi lodged a complaint on

Friday with the Delhi Police accusing his mother, her personal

security officer (PSO), and board members of the cigarettes and

confectionary maker of causing him grievous hurt.

―The incident happened on Thursday when I was trying to enter the

scheduled board meeting of GP (Godfrey Phillips) at Jasola in Delhi.

I was prevented by Bina Modi's PSO from entering the meeting.

When I insisted, he tried to push me and said that I was not allowed

to enter the board meeting.‖ Modi told ET from his recovery bed.

Apart from being a member of Godfrey Phillips in which Phillip

Morris is a 25% shareholder, Samir Modi also heads consumer

businesses such as Colorbar Cosmetics, 24/7 Retail and direct selling

platform Modicare. ―I suspect the entire attack was premeditated

with the aim to prevent me from entering the meeting of the

company in which I am a director,‖ he added.

Messages sent to Bina Modi did not elicit a response until press time.

―My index finger has been broken into two and requires a screw and

wire to be put together, and I may not regain full function of the

finger. There is a break in the joint of my finger. The screw used to

fix it will stay with me for a lifetime and my right hand index finger

will never be wholly functional, I am informed by medical

practitioners,‖ Modi has said in his complaint to Sarita Vihar

police station. ―This attack was orchestrated because of greed and to

deprive me of my rights, my inheritance and with the intention to kill

me or make me settle on their dictated terms. I request you to take

immediate legal action. My mother and Mr Bhasi orchestrated this

assault and the other present board members were consenting parties

CRL.M.C. 6012/2025 & connected matter Page 16 of 41

to this assault. Please make sure that the strictest of action is taken.

These people are very influential and moneyed and will attempt to

derail the process.‖ the complaint added…‖

(Emphasis added)

20. Similarly, another online news article relied upon by the

complainants, published by The Economic Times on 01.06.2024, on

their website, which is a detailed article, reads as under:

―...Feud in Godfrey Phillips: Samir Modi accuses mother Bina of

staging assault on him

Godfrey Phillips executive director Samir Modi has accused his

mother of orchestrating an attack on him, worsening the feud among

the late KK Modi's family members over their inheritance.

The younger son of KK Modi and Bina Modi lodged a complaint

with Delhi Police on Friday, accusing his mother, her personal

security officer (PSO) and Godfrey Phillips directors of causing him

―grievous hurt‖. Bina Modi is also a director of Godfrey Phillips.

―The incident happened on Thursday when I was trying to enter the

scheduled board meeting of GP at Jasola in Delhi,‖ Modi told ET. ―I

was prevented by Bina Modi's PSO from entering the meeting. When

I insisted, he tried to push me and said that I was not allowed to enter

the board meeting.‖

A Godfrey Phillips spokesperson rejected the accusation. ―These

allegations are entirely false and atrocious,‖ the person said. ―The

alleged episode occurred outside the board room when the audit

committee meeting was in progress at about 12 noon. This has been

captured on in-house CCTV cameras, which can be provided to the

relevant investigating authorities.‖

According to Samir Modi, this happened despite an apparent

overture from his mother offering to buy his stake. Following the

alleged attack, he resolved not to agree to an exit.

―I had never imagined to be assaulted in my own office,‖ he told ET

late on Friday at his New Friends Colony home in the Capital.

―While the court case on settlement of shares is pending, I‘ll not sell

my stake now. The effort is to remove me from the board, which will

not happen.‖

The offer from his mother had come through a mediator and he‘d

agreed, Modi said.

Rs 11,000 Crore Inheritance

CRL.M.C. 6012/2025 & connected matter Page 17 of 41

―I had asked (them) to appoint any of the top five auditing firms for

valuation and based on that I should get my 25% share,‖ he told ET.

―Two days ago, they had responded with the names of two

companies, asking me to select one of them for valuation. On

Thursday, when I went for the board meeting my mother's security

officer stopped me and didn‘t let me enter. As I tried, he held my

hand and twisted it. Despite the pain, 1 attended the board meeting

and then went to the hospital.‖

Apart from being a board member of cigarettes and confectionery

maker Godfrey Phillips, in which Phillip Morris is a 25%

shareholder, Samir Modi also heads consumer businesses such as

Colorbar Cosmetics, 24/7 Retail and direct selling platform Modicate

―I suspect that the entire attack was premeditated with the aim to

prevent me from entering the meeting of the company (of which) I

am a director,‖ he said.

―My index finger has been broken into two and requires a screw and

wire to be put together, and I may not regain full function of my

index finger,‖ Modi said in his complaint filed at Sarita Vihar police

station that's been seen by ET. ―The screw used to fix the finger will

stay with me for a lifetime and my right-hand index finger will never

be wholly functional, I am informed by the medical practitioners.‖

While the complaint has been made, a first information report (FIR)

hadn't been registered as of press time.

According to Modi, the board meeting had been convened to discuss

key matters.

―The agenda had been shared with me that some important decisions

were to be taken. Court matters are pending regarding the ownership

of the shares of GPI (Godfrey Phillips India) and the matter is sub

judice before the Supreme Court,‖ Modi said in his complaint.

The bone of contention among the promoters of Godfrey Phillips is

the distribution of a Rs 11,000 crore inheritance after the death of

family patriarch

KK Modi in 2019. Samir Modi, one of the three children of KK

Modi and brother of former Indian Premier League boss Lalit Modi,

has challenged his mother over her handling of affairs in the

Supreme Court. The inheritance includes the family's nearly 50%

shareholding in listed Godfrey Phillips, worth well over Rs 5,500

crore at current market prices, as well as shares in other Modi group

firms in areas such as cosmetics, retail and direct selling

―This attack was orchestrated because of greed and to deprive me of

my rights, my inheritance and with the intention to kill me or make

me settle on their dictated terms,‖ Modi said in his complaint. ―I

request you to take immediate legal action. My mother and Mr

Bhasin orchestrated this assault and the other present board members

were consenting parties to this assault. Please make sure that the

CRL.M.C. 6012/2025 & connected matter Page 18 of 41

strictest of action is taken. These people are very influential and

moneyed and will attempt to derail the process.‖

The reference is to Lalit Bhasin, an independent director. He couldn't

be reached for comment.

―I shouted for help and after much commotion, the door of the board

meeting was opened and I was let in. I informed my mother, Mrs

Bina Modi, of what transpired and how I was assaulted and

grievously injured,‖ Modi said in the complaint. ―Rather than

sympathising with me, she paid no heed to my fragile condition and

shouted at me to sit down and attend the board meeting She told the

PSO ‗enough for now‘, confirming that she was one of the persons

who had given the PSO instructions to attack and injure me.‖

The complaint went on to say: ―Mr Bhasin insisted that the meeting

go on without a break paying no heed to the fact that I was

grievously injured. It was almost like Mr Bhasin had orchestrated the

assault. I did not relent and insisted on proceedings being recorded in

the manner so required by the rules of law.‖

Samir Modi has accused his mother of not distributing funds as

stipulated in a trust deed executed by his father, according to sources

familiar with arguments made by his lawyers at the Supreme Court.

He has also accused her of taking charge of the company, violating

the letter and spirit of the trust deed. According to him, under the

deed, siblings Samir Modi, Lalit Modi and Charu Modi are equal

beneficiaries and successors to the companies and assets.

Shriram Subramanian, founder and MD of proxy advisory firm

InGovern Research Services, said it's the responsibility of the

chairperson and company secretary to ensure civil conduct at board

meetings.

―Even if it is a conflict situation, Samir Modi should have been

allowed to attend the meeting as executive director and they could

have ignored his views in the meeting." he said. "But decorum has to

be maintained in terms of corporate governance and boards can't

have a street fight situation.‖

(Emphasis added)

21. The other news reports relied upon by the respondents in their

complaints refer to and rely upon the news reports published by the

Economic Times only, and thus, need not be referred to in the present

judgment.

CRL.M.C. 6012/2025 & connected matter Page 19 of 41

C. Analysing the Alleged Defamatory Material

22. Having pursued the aforesaid news articles, this Court is of the

opinion that these articles published in the newspaper as well as on

the website, by the Economic Times, can be divided into two distinct

parts. One part records what the petitioner is stated to have told the

reporter of The Economic Times, whereas another part reproduces

the contents of the police complaint lodged by the petitioner with

Police Station Sarita Vihar.

23. In this regard, this Court is of the view that one part, as noted

above, contains the petitioner‘s version of events and his allegations

primarily against his mother, Dr. Bina Modi and her PSO. In this

portion of the article, the petitioner narrates the circumstances in

which he claims to have been prevented from attending the board

meeting of GPIL and assaulted on 30.05.2024. For this part, the

article uses words like ―Modi told ET from his recovery bed‖, ―he

added‖, ―the person said‖, ―According to Modi‖, etc.

24. There is no dispute that these portions of the news articles do

not concern the respondents herein in any manner. Significantly, the

respondents themselves have not alleged any defamation arising from

these parts of the news report. These news articles also record that

messages sent to Dr. Bina Modi did not elicit any response till the

time of publication.

25. Concededly, the complainants/respondents herein have not

raised any grievance with respect to the portions of the news articles

that reproduce what the petitioner is stated to have told the news

CRL.M.C. 6012/2025 & connected matter Page 20 of 41

correspondent(s) regarding his personal grievances with his mother,

Dr. Bina Modi, and pending disputes between them. Further, Dr.

Bina Modi herself has not instituted any complaint for defamation in

this regard against the petitioner.

26. However, the second part of these news articles sets out the

allegations made by the petitioner in his police complaint lodged at

Police Station Sarita Vihar. This portion has been placed within

double quotation marks. This is evident from the use of words such

as ―Modi has said in his complaint to Sarita Vihar police station‖ and

―the complaint added‖.

27. In this regard, this Court has also taken note of the complaint

dated 31.05.2024 submitted by the petitioner at P.S. Sarita Vihar,

wherein it was inter alia alleged as under:

―...I request you to take immediate legal action. My mother and

Mr. Bhasin orchestrated this assault and the other present board

members were consenting parties to this assault. Please make

sure that strictest of action is taken. These people are very

influential and moneyed and will attempt to derail the

process…‖

28. In the above police complaint, the petitioner sets out what

allegedly transpired on 30.05.2024, what injuries were suffered by

him, and further alleges that the assault was orchestrated by his

mother and that the other present board members of GPIL were

consenting parties to the said assault.

29. To reiterate at this stage, the news articles in question, which

have been extracted in preceding discussion, insofar as they pertain to

the allegations against the respondents herein, contain verbatim

CRL.M.C. 6012/2025 & connected matter Page 21 of 41

reproduction of the complaint submitted by the petitioner to the

police authorities Pertinently, it is the specific case of respondents

herein that they are being referred to, by the petitioner herein, by use

of words – ‗other present board members‘.

30. This Court also notes that, from a plain reading of the article,

there is no other specific or direct imputation made against the

respondents individually by the petitioner.

31. It is, therefore, manifest from the above discussion that the

allegation of defamation, raised by the complainants/respondents

herein, is confined solely to one line mentioned in the news articles,

which has been extracted verbatim from the police complaint filed by

the petitioner. The respondents have not alleged defamation on

account of any other independent assertion, opinion, or inference

drawn by the newspaper, but only with respect to the reproduction of

the petitioner‘s allegations as contained in his complaint submitted to

the police authorities.

D. FIR stood registered on the complaint of the Petitioner

32. In the present case, the incident of assault of the petitioner had

allegedly taken place on 30.05.2024, pursuant to which the police

was called to the hospital and the petitioner‘s MLC was prepared.

The petitioner had submitted his complaint to the police on

31.05.2024, and the FIR itself came to be registered on 01.06.2024.

Although it is not evident as to how the news correspondent accessed

the police complaint, particularly as the concerned reporter was not

CRL.M.C. 6012/2025 & connected matter Page 22 of 41

examined during pre-summoning evidence by the respondents herein

despite her name being mentioned in the list of witnesses, what

remains undisputed and is a matter of record that on the very day

the news articles were published by the Economic Times, i.e.

01.06.2024, the petitioner‘s complaint had culminated in the

registration of FIR No. 219/2024 at P.S. Sarita Vihar, Delhi, against

the accused persons for offences under Sections 325 and 341 of the

IPC.

33. Thus, the portions of the news articles – which are alleged to

be defamatory by the present respondents – form part of a police

complaint which stood crystallised into an FIR. The said complaint

and the consequent FIR were thereafter subjected to investigation in

accordance with law, and this Court was informed during the course

of arguments that a charge-sheet in the said case had already been

filed.

34. It is also significant to note, that even in the complaint cases

filed by the complainants/respondents herein, it has been specifically

stated in paragraph 7 of the complaints that the alleged defamatory

news articles contained portions extracted from the complaint dated

31.05.2024 filed by the petitioner against the security officer of

GPIL. This is clearly evident from following:

―7. The defamatory content, including the defamatory

interview, that was published in several newspapers (which

also quoted portions from the false and fabricated criminal

complaint dated 31.05.2024 filed by the Accused against the

security officer posted at the corporate office of GPI), which

were made by the Accused with the personal vested interest

CRL.M.C. 6012/2025 & connected matter Page 23 of 41

and the intent to malign the image of the Board of Directors of

GPI…‖

(Emphasis added)

35. Most importantly, the complainants have themselves stated in

paragraph 7 of their complaints that the news articles ―quoted

portions‖ from the police complaint dated 31.05.2024. Thus, the

respondents herein were fully aware at the time of filing the

complaints before the learned Magistrate, that their allegation of

defamation against the petitioner, arose only from one allegation

made in the police complaint dated 31.05.2024 submitted by the

petitioner, which had already become the subject matter of

investigation pursuant to the registration of the FIR. This is also

evident from the fact that FIR stood registered on 01.06.2024

whereas the complaints in question were filed on 20.06.2024 (by Atul

Kumar Gupta) and 25.06.2024 (by Niramala Bagri) before the

learned Magistrate.

E. Reporting of contents of a police complaint/FIR by news

agencies viz. offence of defamation

36. Suffice it to note that the reporting of the contents of a police

complaint or an FIR by news agencies has, on several occasions,

been the subject of judicial consideration. Courts have repeatedly

examined the extent to which reproduction of such contents can give

rise to liability for defamation.

37. The High Court of Bombay, in Vijay v. Ravindra Ghisulal

Gupta: 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 1315 , in respect of news

CRL.M.C. 6012/2025 & connected matter Page 24 of 41

reporters/editors reporting the contents of an FIR, has held that mere

reporting of the registration of a crime or reproduction of the contents

of an FIR, without distortion or embellishment, does not constitute

defamation under Section 499 of IPC. It was observed that

registration of an FIR is a matter in the public domain and faithful

reporting thereof, in exercise of the freedom of speech and

expression, cannot be treated as an intentional imputation harming

reputation. It was observed as under:

―17. It takes me to another limb of submission. Learned Counsel for

the applicants would submit that mere publication of registration of

crime would not fall within the ambit of Section 499 of the Indian

Penal Code. It is submitted that whatever was registered in the First

Information Report against the nonapplicant (complainant), was

published in the newspaper, which cannot be termed as defamation.

In order to constitute the offence of defamation, the dual requirement

is to be met, that the publication must be an imputation, and

secondly, there must be an intention to harm the reputation of the

person.

18. It is not in dispute that at the instance of the Police report lodged

by co-accused Ashok Gupta, Police of Yavatmal City Police Station

registered crime no. 313 of 2016 for the offence punishable under

Sections 143, 148, 326, 294 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code

against the non-applicant (complainant) and 5 others. As far as the

news item is concerned, there is no allegation that the news was a

distorted version or a colourable exaggeration of the First

Information Report. In short, there is no dispute that the crime was

registered against the complainant and the news item reflects the true

gist of the allegations levelled in the report. Rather the said fact

cannot be disputed since the copy of the First Information Report has

been produced on record. The core question is whether publication or

reporting of registration of crime amounts to the intentional

imputation of a named person. Undoubtedly, the Press has great

power in impressing the minds of the people and thus it is essential

that the person responsible for publishing anything in newspapers

should take good care before its publication. No doubt, publication

of news on rumour or on hear-say information having no iota of truth

is fatal to a Journalist. Herein it is not the case that First Information

Report was not at all registered or the distorted news item was

published.

CRL.M.C. 6012/2025 & connected matter Page 25 of 41

19. It was thus inquired from the Counsel for the nonapplicant as to

how the action of reporting a news item could be said to be

defamatory. It is common knowledge that in daily newspapers at

least some space is devoted to the news about the registration of

crimes, filing of cases in Courts, the progress of the investigation,

arrest of persons, etc. It constitutes news events which public has the

right to know. Certainly, the Publishers are to report the true

happenings in their newspapers. I may reiterate that there is no

dispute that the fact of registration of crime was correctly reported.

Filing complaints about defamation on such news items are nothing

but an attempt to shut up and stifle the Reporters /informants and to

force them to withdraw the report filed against the persons who are

allegedly defamed. No reply in this respect was forthcoming from

the Counsel of the non-applicant nor has anything in this respect

been stated as to how the said act of Editor/Publisher gives rise to the

action for libel. If it was held so then no reporting of news could be

made till the final outcome of the investigation or the final orders of

the last Court. It would deprive the rights of the public to know the

happenings.

20. It is the primary function of the Press to provide comprehensive

and correct information, especially when it is brought into the public

domain. Freedom of the Press is implied from the freedom of speech

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

India. In other words, the freedom of making a true report regarding

the affairs which are in the public domain is a right, which flows

from the freedom of speech. The action of defamation about true and

faithful reporting is unhealthy for a democratic setup.

21. Registration of a crime is no longer a private affair. The

Supreme Court in case of Youth Bar Association of India vs. Union

of India and anr. (2016) 9 SCC 473 has directed that the copies of

the First Information Report (barring cases of sensitive nature) shall

be uploaded on the website meaning thereby the registration of the

First Information Report falls in the public domain.

***

24. The tenor of the entire private complaint is that the allegations

levelled in the Police report qua complainant Ravindra are totally

false. In the complaint of defamation, he pleaded that on the date of

the alleged occurrence, he was not present rather he was elsewhere

on duty. It is alleged that the publisher of the newspaper without

verifying the truthfulness of the news, had published the news item,

amounting to defamation. The complaint also bears reference that

complainant has been excluded while filing the charge sheet, perhaps

under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As a matter of

fact, the news item was published within three days from the

registration of the crime, therefore, subsequent exclusion from the

charge sheet has no bearing at all. Moreover, the news item was

based on the true facts i.e. about the registration of crime at the

Police Station. The responsibility of the Editor is to publish true facts

CRL.M.C. 6012/2025 & connected matter Page 26 of 41

and nothing else. The complaint of defamation alleges that the

truthfulness of the contents of the First Information Report are not

verified. The publisher is not expected to investigate the matter and

ascertain the truthfulness of the First Information Report before

publishing the news item. The liability and responsibility of the

Editor are restricted to a limited extent therefore, the contention in

that regard is not acceptable.‖

38. A Coordinate Bench of this Court, in Mahadev I. Todale v.

Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.: 2017 SCC OnLine

Del 9135, while giving relief to the investigating officer of a case,

who had been arrayed as defendant in a suit for defamation filed for

reporting of police complaints and FIR in news channels, held that

reporting of police complaints or FIRs, and the progress of

investigation does not give rise to cause of action for defamation, so

long as the criminal proceedings are pending and the allegations

remain unadjudicated. The Court also cautioned against using

defamation proceedings as a counter-blast to stifle or derail criminal

proceedings lawfully set in motion. It was held as under:

―12. I have at the outset enquired from the counsel for the respondent

no. 1/plaintiff as to how the respondent no. 1/plaintiff can maintain a

suit for damages for defamation qua what has transpired during the

investigation of the FIR and in Court in pursuance thereto, when the

outcome of the prosecution is not known as yet.

13. This Court in Shri Ram Singh Batra v. Smt. Sharan Premi 133

(2006) DLT 126 also was concerned with a suit for recovery of

damages for defamation by publication in the newspapers of the FIR

registered against the plaintiff therein and arrest of the plaintiff

therein. It was pleaded that the complaint on the basis of which

FIR was registered was false. It was found that the process of

criminal law was still on and the plaintiff had not been acquitted

or discharged. It was held (i) that malicious prosecution is

actionable as a tort but mere presentation of a false complaint which

first seeks to set the criminal law in motion will not furnish an action

for damages for malicious prosecution; (ii) that till the plaintiff

obtains an order of acquittal or discharge in his favour, no cause of

action to file a suit against the defendant on the tort of malicious

CRL.M.C. 6012/2025 & connected matter Page 27 of 41

prosecution accrues; (iii) that the newspaper reports of registration of

FIR against the plaintiff and disclosing the nature of offence alleged

of the plaintiff and of arrest of the plaintiff are also not actionable;

(iv) that till it is established that the FIR in question is based on a

false allegation, no action is found maintainable on the

newspaper reports; (v) that till the investigation is on, there can

be no cause of action. Accordingly, the plaint in the suit was

rejected.

14. This Court, again in Vijay Gulati v. Radhika (2010) 119 DRJ 482

was concerned with the maintainability of a suit for damages for

defamatory statements made in complaints made to the police and

wide spread and open circulation thereof. It was held (a) that till

the time the charges levelled against the plaintiff are not

disproved or not proved, it could not be said that the allegations

in the complaint were without any merit; (b) that the allegations

in the complaint could not be said to be defamatory; (c) that a

suit for damages for defamation cannot be initiated as a

surrogate litigation as a counter-blast and to use it as a lever to

tame the defendant; (d) that the defendant/ complainant cannot

be put on a defensive by initiation of such a suit for damages for

defamation; (e) that the suit for damages for defamation cannot

be used as a lever to get the dragnet by criminal cases; (f) reliance

was placed on Bira Garari v. Dulhin Somaria AIR 1962 Patna 229

(DB) laying down that in a case of defamation on the basis of

registration of a cognizable offence, it could not be said that the

person had been defamed unless and until the said complaint is tested

before the appropriate forum; (g) once a person puts criminal law

into action, the other party cannot lodge and bring about a suit

for defamation so as to stop those criminal proceedings; (h) that

the appropriate remedy for such a plaintiff would be either to

institute a suit for damages for malicious prosecution or to get a case

registered under Section 182 Cr.P.C.; (i) that the suit for damages for

defamation is pre-mature till the complaint is rejected. Accordingly,

the suit held not maintainable and the plaint was rejected.

***

17. The counsel for the respondent No. 1/plaintiff has drawn

attention to the averments in the plaint against the

petitioner/defendant to the effect (i) that petitioner/defendant has

interacted with the other defendants in giving false, baseless and

unsubstantiated information to the newspapers; (ii) that the acts of

the petitioner/defendant are not in discharge of his official duties;

and, (iii) that the petitioner/defendant as the Investigation Officer has

no role in prejudging the issue/controversy or the allegations leveled

in the FIR.

18. However the said averments in paragraph 2 of the plaint are in

the context of the plea therein of no notice under Section 80 of CPC

being required to be served on the petitioner/defendant and no

permission from the State Government under Section 161 of the

CRL.M.C. 6012/2025 & connected matter Page 28 of 41

Bombay Police Act, 1951 for prosecuting the petitioner/defendant

being required. Else, the respondent No. 1/plaintiff in para 21 of the

plaint, qua the petitioner/defendant has merely pleaded that the

petitioner/defendant has prejudged the entire issue and has given

false and unsubstantiated information to the newspapers and that the

said illegal act of the petitioner/defendant has not been done in

discharge of his official duty. The respondent No. 1/plaintiff in this

regard, in paras 21 & 22 of the plaint, has reproduced the following

passages from the newspaper articles: ……

19. It is thus not the plea of the respondent No. 1/plaintiff that the

information which the petitioner/defendant is attributed to have

supplied to the newspapers is beyond the contents of the FIR or is

contrary to the investigation carried out till then.‖

39. Similarly, in Primero Skill & Training Pvt. Ltd. v. Selima

Publications Pvt. Ltd.: 2017 SCC OnLine Del 7619, the Coordinate

Bench of this Court reiterated that statements made in police

complaints and FIRs, and their faithful reporting by the media, do not

give rise to a cause of action for defamation. The Court held that

once the contents of an FIR fall within the public domain,

particularly in view of the directions of the Supreme Court mandating

publication of FIRs, neither the complainant nor the publisher can be

proceeded against for defamation merely for reproducing such

contents.

―13. Having given further thought to the matter, I remain of the same

view as on the day when the suit had come up for admission, that this

suit does not deserve to be entertained and deserves to be thrown out

at the threshold to save the defendants, who do not appear to be

persons with much monetary means, from travelling to Delhi,

engaging an Advocate, appearing and contesting this suit at Delhi.

14. My reasons therefor are as under:—

(a) Supreme Court, in Youth Bar Association of India v. Union

of India (2016) 9 SCC 473, concerned with a petition under

Article 32 of the Constitution of India and while issuing

guidelines/directions for supply of copy of FIR has inter alia

directed that the copies of the FIR (unless the offence is

sensitive in nature, like sexual offences, offences pertaining to

CRL.M.C. 6012/2025 & connected matter Page 29 of 41

insurgency, terrorism and of that category, offences under

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act,

2012 and such other offences) should, within twenty-four hours

of the registration of the FIR, be uploaded on the police

website, and if there is no such website on the official website

of the State Government so that the accused or any person

connected with the same can download the FIR and file

appropriate application before the Court for redressal of his

grievances and that the decision not to upload the copy of the

FIR on the website shall not be taken by an officer below the

rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or a person holding

equivalent post.

(b) As per the law aforesaid declared by the Supreme Court,

the contents of FIR, irrespective of whether published in a

newspaper as a news event or not, are in public domain.

Once the Police itself, as per law declared by the Supreme

Court is required to publish the FIR, I fail to see how the

defendants no. 1 to 6 as editor/publisher of the newspaper

or the defendant no. 7 as complainant, can be proceeded

against in an action for defamation for publishing the

contents thereof.

(c) It is not as if the direction aforesaid of the Supreme Court is

without regard to the reputation of the persons complained

against in the FIR. The law of defamation, which as far as India

is concerned is uncodified and based on common law, has

always recognised certain situations as privileged, words

spoken or written wherein cannot furnish a cause of action for a

claim on account of defamation. Supreme Court in Raja Ram

Pal v. Hon'ble Speaker, Lok Sabha (2007) 3 SCC 184 held that

the term ―privilege in law‖ is defined as an immunity or an

exemption from some duty, burden, attendance or liability

conferred by special grant in derogation of common right. The

term ―privilege‖ was stated to be derived from an expression

―privilegium‖ which means a law specially passed in favour of

or against a particular person.

(d) The reason is that the law recognises those situations as

where a person should have freedom of speech, without being

under the fear of being hauled up subsequently for defamation.

(e) As far back as in Golap Jan v. Bholanath Khettry it was held

by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court that though

defamation is a good cause of action but even if the complaint

to the Magistrate was defamatory still the complainant was

entitled to protection from a suit for defamation and this

protection was the absolute privilege accorded in the public

interest to those who make statements to the Courts in the

course of and in relation to judicial proceedings. The Division

Bench of the Madras High Court also in Pedda Sanjivi Reddy v.

CRL.M.C. 6012/2025 & connected matter Page 30 of 41

Kondasari Koneri Reddi AIR 1926 Mad 521 held that the

statements made to the police officer which could only be made

with a view to their being repeated on oath before the

Magistrate as well as statements in the petition presented to the

Magistrate have been invested by the common law of England

with absolute privilege which attaches not merely to the actual

proceedings of any tribunal exercising judicial function, but to

all preliminary steps which are in accordance with the cognised

and reasonable procedure of such a tribunal. It was also held

that the public policy which renders the protection of witnesses

necessary for the administration of justice necessarily involves

that which is a step towards, and is part of the administration of

justice, namely the preliminary examination of witnesses to find

out what they can prove, and consequently statements made by

a witness to a litigant or his solicitor in preparing proof are

absolutely privileged. A subsequent Division Bench of the

Calcutta High Court in Madhab Chandra Ghose v. Nirod

Chandra Ghose AIR 1939 Cal 477 added that it is a matter of

public policy and administration of justice that witnesses giving

their evidence on oath in a Court of justice should not have

before their eyes the fear of being harassed by suits for

damages; the only penalty which they should incur if they give

evidence falsely should be an indictment for perjury. No action

for libel or slander was held to lie against Judges, counsel,

witnesses, or parties, for words written or spoken in the course

of any proceeding before any Court recognised by law even

though the words were written or spoken maliciously, without

any justification or excuse, and from personal-ill-will and anger

against the person defamed. It was emphasised that a witness

must be protected for a preliminary statement as well. It was

further held that though some hardship may be caused to the

person defamed but it would be impossible to administer

justice, if people were to be afraid to give their testimony.

(f) Subsequently, in Anjana Saikia (Das) v. Anuradha Das 2003

SCC OnLine Gau 321 it was held that though an action for

defamation by statement in the FIR would lie but only after the

FIR case was decided. Similarly, in Mahavir Singh v. Surinder

Singh 2010 SCC OnLine P&H 9094 also it was held that mere

lodging of the FIR, though it may contain false imputation,

does not amount to defaming the person against whom FIR

is lodged. To the same effect is Kamlesh Kaur v. Lakhwinder

Singh 2008 SCC OnLine P&H 920.

(g) A learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madras in A.N.

Shanmugam v. G. Saravanan 2015 SCC OnLine Mad 728 held

the filing of a suit for defamation in such circumstances to be a

process to escape from criminal prosecution and to make the

defendant to come to terms. It was held that if every

complainant who lodges the complaint with law enforcing

CRL.M.C. 6012/2025 & connected matter Page 31 of 41

agency is to face civil cases for defamation on the premise

that the imputations made in the complaint according to the

accused are false, many people fearing such actions on the

part of the accused may not come forward to lodge a

complaint to the law enforcing agency. It was further held

that when an imputation has been made in a complaint

made to the law enforcing agency with the belief that such

agency would take criminal action against the persons

against whom such imputations are made, the same

provides a valid exception taking such act outside the scope

of tort of defamation. It was held that the lodging of the

complaint with the police could not be considered to be

publication of a defamatory statement and that if any wrong

is committed by lodging a false complaint with the police

and thereby setting the criminal law in motion, it may

amount to malicious prosecution for which action can be

taken only after disposal of the criminal case, wherein a

specific finding is given to that effect.

(h) With respect to malicious prosecution also, I have in

Gangadhar Padhy v. Prem Singh 211 (2014) DLT 104 relying

on S.T. Sahib v. N. Hasan Ghani Sahib AIR 1957 Madras 646

held that action for malicious prosecution is not favoured in law

and should be properly guarded and its true principles strictly

adhered to, since public policy favours the exposure of a crime

and it is highly desirable that those reasonably suspected of

crime be subjected to the process of criminal law for the

protection of society and the citizen be accorded immunity for

bona fide efforts to bring anti-social members of the society to

the bar of justice.

(i) Thus there is no cause of action for a claim for defamation in

favour of the plaintiff against the defendant No. 7 for the

statements made by the defendant No. 7 in the complaint and in

the FIR lodged by her.

(j) A Nine Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in Naresh

Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1967 SC 1

reiterated that Journalists have a fundamental right to carry on

their occupation under Article 19(1)(g); they have also a right to

attend proceedings in Court under Article 19(1)(d); and that the

right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article

19(1)(a) includes their right to publish as Journalists a faithful

report of the proceedings which they have witnessed and heard

in Court. Freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by

Article 19(1)(a) was reiterated to include the freedom of press.

It was further held that what takes place in Court is public and

the publication of the proceedings merely enlarges the area of

the court and gives to the trial that added publicity which is

favoured by the rule that the trial should be open and public; it

is only when the public is excluded from audience that the

CRL.M.C. 6012/2025 & connected matter Page 32 of 41

privilege of publication also goes because the public outside

then have no right to obtain at second-hand what they cannot

obtain in the court itself. It was yet further held that if the matter

is already published in open court, it cannot be prevented from

being published outside the court room provided the report is a

verbatim or a fair account.

(k) I have already hereinabove noticed that it is not the plea of

the plaintiff that what has been published by the defendant

Nos. 1 to 6 in their newspaper is not a fair account of the

complaint and the FIR lodged by the defendant no. 7.

(l) The Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay in Saroj

Iyer v. Maharashtra Medical of Indian Medicine, Bombay

(2002) 1 Mh.L.J. 737 held that the Medical Council being a

Quasi Judicial Tribunal and the inquiry before it being quasi

judicial in nature, there can be no blanket ban for public in

attending the enquiry proceedings.

(m) This Court in Mother Dairy Foods and Processing Ltd. v.

ZEE Telefilms Ltd. ILR (2005) 1 Delhi 87 was concerned with

an application for interim relief in a suit by a major supplier of

milk and milk products to restrain a television channel from

publishing and telecasting a programme purported to be an

investigation into manufacturing of synthetic milk. It was the

case of the plaintiff that the programme was created and aired to

tarnish its image and reputation with the sole objective of

sensationalism and to defame. Finding that there was no plea of

conspiracy and the plea of malafides as set-forth to be lacking

in material particulars qua the persons at whose behest the

programme was being aired, interim injunction was denied

holding that media being a zealous guardian of freedom of

expression and speech, has a right to comment vigorously and

fearlessly on matters of public interest and the efforts of the

T.V. Channels in unearthing and bringing to the notice of public

the menace of manufacturing of synthetic milk was a laudable

measure for public good.

(n) I may notice that similarly here, it is in public interest

that it be investigated whether PMKVY is being misused to

siphon off monies in the name of training, without any real

benefit to the purported beneficiaries thereof.

(o) This Court in Vineet Jain v. NCT of Delhi (2011) 184 DLT

596 was concerned with the complaint of the offence of

defamation by reporting in the media contents of an FIR

registered of offences under Section 294/109/34 of the Penal

Code, 1860 IPC read with Section 8 of Immoral Trafficking

Act and the raid conducted at a hotel in Delhi. It was held

that fair reporting pertaining to a matter of public concern,

without insinuations and innuendos i.e. a news item

containing statements of true facts emanating from a proper

CRL.M.C. 6012/2025 & connected matter Page 33 of 41

source i.e. police is not actionable for the offence of criminal

defamation; a fact pertaining to an FIR being registered

with reference to the activities found to be carried out from

the Hotel as recorded in the FIR made public by the police,

was also held to be not amounting to a criminal defamation.

(p) The High Court of Bombay also in SNP Shipping Services

Pvt. Ltd. v. World Tanker Carrier Corporation (2000) 2

Mh.L.J. 570 held that a fair and accurate gist of the findings

given by the Court cannot constitute a cause of action for

defamation and the plaint was rejected under Order VII Rule 11

of the CPC.

(q) A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in Sahara

India Real Estate supra relied upon by the counsel for the

plaintiff held that the inaccuracy of reporting of court

proceedings will be a contempt of court only if it can be said on

the facts of a particular case, to amount to substantial

interference with the administration of justice; that the privilege

granted under Section 4 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 in

favour of the person who makes a fair and accurate publication

is based on the presumption of ‗open justice‘ in courts which

permits fair and accurate reports of Court proceedings to be

published. It was held that the media has a right to know what is

happening in courts and to disseminate the information to the

public which enhances the public confidence in the

transparency of court proceedings. It follows from the said

judgment that postponement of publication of court proceedings

can be applied for to the same court in which the proceedings

are pending and not to another court. I am in fact at pains to

understand in what context the counsel for the plaintiff has

relied on the said judgment. As far as reliance on Swatanter

Kumar supra is concerned, the law as expounded and noticed

above was noticed therein also but in the facts of that case

interim injunction was granted. The same also is of no benefit to

the plaintiff. The same is the position of Reliance

Petrochemicals Ltd supra.

(r) Mention may lastly be made of my judgment in Veer Arjun

Newspaper Pvt. Ltd. v. Bahori Lal 2013 SCC OnLine Del 5096

wherein following the aforesaid law it was held that reporting of

contents of a complaint is privileged and does not invite a claim

for defamation.

(s) Supreme Court recently in Subramanian Swamy v. Union of

India (2016) 7 SCC 221 was concerned with a challenge to the

vires of Sections 499 and 500 of the Penal Code, 1860

constituting defamation as defined therein as an offence, on the

ground of the same being violative of Article 19(1)(a) of the

Constitution of India. Negativing the challenge, Supreme Court

held (i) that while in a democracy, an individual has a right to

CRL.M.C. 6012/2025 & connected matter Page 34 of 41

criticize and dissent but his right under Article 19(1)(a) is not

absolute and he cannot defame another person as that would

offend the victim's fundamental right to reputation which is a

facet of Article 21 of the Constitution and one fundamental

right cannot be given higher status in comparison to the other

and what is required is proper balancing of the two and

harmonious construction in light of objective of fraternity and

fundamental duties envisaged under Article 51A(e) and (j) of

the Constitution; (ii) that Article 19(2) envisages ―reasonable

restrictions‖; right to say what may displease or annoy others

cannot be throttled; (iii) that there can be no cavil that the right

to freedom of speech and expression is a right that has to get

ascendance in a democratic body polity but at the same time the

limit has to be ―proportionate‖ and not unlimited; (iv) that the

restrictions should not be excessive and should be in public

interest; (v) the test of reasonableness cannot be determined by

laying down any abstract standard or general pattern—it would

depend upon the nature of the right which has been infringed or

sought to be infringed and the ultimate impact i.e. the effect on

the right has to be determined; (vi) that the principles of

proportionality of restraint are to be kept in mind by the Court.

(t) Notice may also be taken of Shreya Singhal v. Union of

India (2015) 5 SCC 1 which was concerned with the challenge

to the vires of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act,

2000 on the ground of being violative of Article 19(1)(a) of the

Constitution of India. It was held (a) that the fundamental right

of freedom of speech and expression requires free flow of

opinion and ideas and an informed citizenry is a pre-condition

for meaningful governance and the culture of open dialogue is

generally of great societal importance and the ultimate truth is

evolved by free trade in ideas in a competitive marketplace of

ideas; (b) that it is only beyond a certain threshold that Article

19(2) is kicked in; and, (c) that wider reach and range of

circulation over internet cannot justify restriction of freedom of

speech and expression on that ground alone and that virtues of

electronic media cannot become its enemies.

(u) Applying the tests aforesaid also, no cause of action in

favour of plaintiff or against any of defendants is disclosed…‖

(Emphasis added)

40. Therefore, it is well-settled that reporting of the contents of an

FIR, without embellishment, distortion, or addition, cannot be

covered under the definition of defamation under law.

CRL.M.C. 6012/2025 & connected matter Page 35 of 41

F. Exception 8 to Section 499 of the IPC

41. At this stage, it is apposite to note that Exception 8 to Section

499 of the IPC protects an accusation made in good faith to a person

having lawful authority over the subject matter of such accusation.

The same is set out below:

Eighth Exception.—Accusation preferred in good faith to

authorised person.—It is not defamation to prefer in good

faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have

lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject-

matter of accusation.

42. In essence, it provides that making an allegation to a

competent authority, for the purpose of seeking redressal or lawful

action, does not amount to defamation. In the present case, the

petitioner squarely claims the protection of the said exception.

43. The Hon‘ble Supreme Court, in Iveco Magirus

Brandschutztechnik GmbH v. Nirmal Kishore Bhartiya & Ors.:

2023 SCC OnLine SC 1258, has held that even at the stage of

summoning, the Magistrate is not precluded from examining whether

any of the Exceptions to Section 499 of IPC are prima facie attracted.

It was observed that if the material placed before the Magistrate itself

discloses a complete defence under any of the Exceptions, the

Magistrate is duty-bound to apply judicial mind and prevent a

frivolous complaint from resulting in an unnecessary criminal trial.

The relevant observations are as under:

―59. Thus, when a Magistrate taking cognisance of an offence

proceeds Under Section 200 based on a prima facie satisfaction

that a criminal offence is made out, he is required to satisfy

himself by looking into the allegations levelled in the complaint,

CRL.M.C. 6012/2025 & connected matter Page 36 of 41

the statements made by the complainant in support of the

complaint, the documentary evidence in support of the

allegations, if any, produced by him as well as statements of any

witness the complainant may choose to produce to stand by the

allegations in the complaint. Although we are not concerned with

Section 202 here, if an inquiry or an investigation is conducted

thereunder, it goes without saying that the reports should also be

looked into by the Magistrate before issuing process Under Section

204. However, there can be no gainsaying that at the stage the

Magistrate decides to pass an order summoning the Accused,

examination of the nature referred to above ought not to be intended

for forming an opinion as to whether the materials are sufficient for a

'conviction'; instead, he is required to form an opinion whether the

materials are sufficient for 'proceeding' as the title of the relevant

chapter would indicate. Since the Accused does not enter the arena at

that stage, question of the Accused raising a defence to thwart

issuance of process does not arise. Nonetheless, the fact that the

Accused is not before the Magistrate does not mean that the

Magistrate need not apply his judicial mind. Nothing in the

applicable law prevents the Magistrate from applying his

judicial mind to other provisions of law and to ascertain

whether, prima facie, an "offence", as defined in Section 2(n) of

the Code of Criminal Procedure is made out. Without such

opinion being formed, question of "proceeding" as in Section 204

does not arise.

60. What the law imposes on the Magistrate as a requirement is that

he is bound to consider only such of the materials that are brought

before him in terms of Sections 200 and 202 as well as any

applicable provision of a statute, and what is imposed as a restriction

by law on him is that he is precluded from considering any material

not brought on the record in a manner permitted by the legal process.

As a logical corollary to the above proposition, what follows is that

the Magistrate while deciding whether to issue process is entitled to

form a view looking into the materials before him. If, however, such

materials themselves disclose a complete defence under any of

the Exceptions, nothing prevents the Magistrate upon

application of judicial mind to accord the benefit of such

Exception to prevent a frivolous complaint from triggering an

unnecessary trial.

61. Since initiation of prosecution is a serious matter, we are

minded to say that it would be the duty of the Magistrate to

prevent false and frivolous complaints eating up precious

judicial time. If the complaint warrants dismissal, the Magistrate

is statutorily mandated to record his brief reasons. On the

contrary, if from such materials a prima facie satisfaction is reached

upon application of judicial mind of an "offence" having been

committed and there being sufficient ground for proceeding, the

Magistrate is under no other fetter from issuing process. Upon a

CRL.M.C. 6012/2025 & connected matter Page 37 of 41

prima facie case being made out and even though much can be said

on both sides, the Magistrate would have no option but to commit an

Accused for trial, as held in Chandra Deo Singh (supra) ……

62. In the context of a complaint of defamation, at the stage the

Magistrate proceeds to issue process, he has to form his opinion

based on the allegations in the complaint and other material

(obtained through the process referred to in Section 200/Section 202)

as to whether 'sufficient ground for proceeding' exists as

distinguished from 'sufficient ground for conviction', which has to be

left for determination at the trial and not at the stage when process is

issued. Although there is nothing in the law which in express

terms mandates the Magistrate to consider whether any of the

Exceptions to Section 499, Indian Penal Code is attracted, there

is no bar either. After all, what is 'excepted' cannot amount to

defamation on the very terms of the provision. We do realize that

more often than not, it would be difficult to form an opinion that

an Exception is attracted at that juncture because neither a

complaint for defamation (which is not a regular phenomenon in

the criminal courts) is likely to be drafted with contents, nor are

statements likely to be made on oath and evidence adduced,

giving an escape route to the Accused at the threshold. However,

we hasten to reiterate that it is not the law that the Magistrate is

in any manner precluded from considering if at all any of the

Exceptions is attracted in a given case; the Magistrate is under

no fetter from so considering, more so because being someone

who is legally trained, it is expected that while issuing process he

would have a clear idea of what constitutes defamation. If, in the

unlikely event, the contents of the complaint and the supporting

statements on oath as well as reports of investigation/inquiry

reveal a complete defence under any of the Exceptions to Section

499, Indian Penal Code, the Magistrate, upon due application of

judicial mind, would be justified to dismiss the complaint on

such ground and it would not amount to an act in excess of

jurisdiction if such dismissal has the support of reasons.‖

(Emphasis added)

44. In the facts of the present case, it is crucial to take note of the

decision in Kishore Balkrishna Nand v. State of Maharashtra &

Anr.: (2023) 8 SCC 358, wherein the Hon‘ble Supreme Court had

quashed the summons issued to the petitioner therein, for offence

under Section 499 of IPC, in a complaint filed alleging that a

defamatory complaint had been filed by the accused/petitioner

CRL.M.C. 6012/2025 & connected matter Page 38 of 41

therein before the SDM. It was held by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court

that Exception 8 to Section 499 IPC was clearly attracted, and

issuance of process by the concerned Magistrate was quashed.

G. Whether the Impugned Order is liable to be set aside?

45. In the impugned order, the learned Sessions Court has taken

the view that Exception 8 is not available to the petitioner on the

ground that the interview was given to a news agency, which is not a

public authority. However, this reasoning clearly overlooks a crucial

aspect of the matter – that the respondents herein have not assailed

the contents of the petitioner‘s interview to the news agency. Their

grievance is confined only to one line in the news articles, which is a

verbatim reproduction of the petitioner‘s police complaint and the

consequent FIR, as discussed above in detail. The complaint, forming

the basis of the impugned line in the news articles, was admittedly

made to a public authority, i.e. the police, in relation to an alleged

cognizable offence. Importantly, an FIR stood registered on the said

complaint and was subjected to investigation in accordance with law.

46. Had the petitioner, while interacting with the news

correspondent(s) of the Economic Times, made any additional

allegations against the respondents herein, beyond what was stated in

the police complaint, the position might have been different. That,

however, is not the case here.

47. From a plain reading of the news articles, it is evident that the

statement complained of is nothing but a reproduction of the

CRL.M.C. 6012/2025 & connected matter Page 39 of 41

accusation made by the petitioner to the police authorities. In these

circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that Exception 8 to

Section 499 of IPC is clearly attracted in the present case, and the

continuation of criminal proceedings for defamation cannot be

sustained.

48. This Court also notes that the defamation complaints filed by

the respondents herein contain detailed discussion on how the police

complaint filed by the petitioner herein was false and fabricated. This

Court is however of the considered opinion that the question as to

whether the allegations contained in the FIR are found to be true or

false falls within the domain of the investigating agency and,

thereafter, the learned Trial Court who will adjudicate the matter as

per law. The veracity of such allegations, the evidence in support

thereof, and the exact manner in which the alleged incident took

place are all matters that are required to be investigated by the police

during investigation. These issues cannot be adjudicated or pre-

judged in proceedings relating to defamation.

49. If such an approach were to be permitted, it would lead to a

situation where any person named as an accused in an FIR would

become entitled to initiate criminal defamation proceedings against

the complainant on the plea that the allegations are false. Further,

where a police complaint or FIR, which is otherwise available in the

public domain and accessible online (save in sensitive cases), is

reported by news agencies, without exaggeration or modification, the

complainant as well as the publisher of such news articles could be

CRL.M.C. 6012/2025 & connected matter Page 40 of 41

exposed to defamation proceedings. This would inevitably result in

two parallel criminal proceedings arising out of the same incident –

one being the substantive criminal case instituted by the victim, and

the other being a defamation case initiated by the accused.

H. Conclusion

50. Therefore, to sum up, the present case is one where the

petitioner cannot be said to have made or disseminated any false or

defamatory imputation against the respondents herein. A plain

reading of the news articles in question makes it evident that the

portion attributed to what the petitioner told the news

correspondent(s) does not pertain to the present respondents/

complainants, but pertains to his mother Dr. Bina Modi. The only

segment of the news articles, complained of by the respondents, is a

single line stating that the ‗other present board members were

consenting parties to the assault‘. As already noted above, this line is

a verbatim reproduction of the allegation made by the petitioner in

his police complaint dated 31.05.2024, which culminated into an FIR

registered on 01.06.2024 and was thereafter subjected to

investigation, resulting in filing of a charge-sheet, and the said line

was mentioned in the news articles under double quotation marks,

followed by the words ‗complaint added‘. The said line was not any

independent statement made by the petitioner to the news

correspondent(s), but a reproduction of an accusation made by him to

a public authority, i.e. police, in the course of invoking the criminal

law. In these circumstances, the essential ingredients of the offence

CRL.M.C. 6012/2025 & connected matter Page 41 of 41

of defamation under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC are not made out at

the threshold, considering the applicability of Exception 8 to Section

499 of IPC.

51. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the impugned orders

directing issuance of summons to the petitioner cannot be sustained

in law and are therefore set aside, and the consequential proceedings

emanating therefrom are also quashed.

52. The petitions are accordingly allowed in above terms and

disposed of. Pending applications are also disposed of.

53. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J

JUNE 01, 2026/zp

T.D.