The Allahabad High Court quashed a defamation summons against journalists for publishing Brij Bhushan’s letters calling an advocate a ‘blackmailer’, citing lack of judicial reasoning by the Magistrate
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
LUCKNOW: The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has set aside a summoning order issued against two journalists from the newspaper Sunday Views in a defamation case filed by a local advocate. Justice Saurabh Lavania, while hearing the application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), observed that the Magistrate had failed to apply proper judicial reasoning before summoning the accused.
Background of the Case
The controversy arose from an online article published on November 6, 2022, by Sunday Views, titled:
“Mohammad Kamran ‘Patrakar Nahi, Blackmailer Hai’: Sansad Brij Bhushan Singh”.
The article reproduced the contents of letters authored by BJP MP Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh, addressed to Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath and the Chief Secretary, alleging that Dr. Mohd. Kamran, an advocate, was a blackmailer facing multiple criminal cases of extortion, theft, and molestation.
Aggrieved by the publication, Dr. Kamran filed a defamation complaint against Divya Srivastava (owner) and Sanjay Srivastava (editor) of the newspaper. On April 10, 2023, the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Customs), Lucknow, summoned them under Sections 500, 501, and 502 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deal with defamation and sale of defamatory material.
The Journalists’ Challenge Before the High Court
The journalists, represented by Adv. Shivendra S. Singh Rathore approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC. They argued that:
- The Magistrate had not applied his judicial mind while issuing the summoning order under Section 204 CrPC.
- The order did not account for exceptions under Section 500 IPC, which protect publications made in public interest and good faith.
- The impugned article was based on letters written by MP Brij Bhushan Singh, against whom Dr. Kamran had also filed a defamation complaint. That complaint, however, was quashed by the High Court, and the Supreme Court later upheld the decision.
The applicants also relied upon important precedents, including:
- Afshan Meerza vs. State of West Bengal (2022 SCC OnLine Cal 4126)
- GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust vs. India Infoline Ltd. (2013) 4 SCC 505
- Neelam Raaj vs. M/s Bid and Hammer Auctioneers Pvt. Ltd. (Criminal Appeal No. 817 of 2025)
ALSO READ: SC to Review Unilateral Divorce Rights for Muslim Women via Khula
Court’s Observations
Justice Lavania noted that the Magistrate had failed to consider all aspects of the case, including statutory exceptions and binding precedents. The Court emphasized that before summoning an accused in a defamation case, the Magistrate must carefully examine:
- The complaint and statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC.
- The relevant provisions of IPC, especially Section 500 and its exceptions.
- Judicial pronouncements governing the law on defamation.
The Court also took note of the fact that even the complainant’s counsel, Adv. Pramod Kumar Shukla could not dispute the argument that the order lacked adequate reasoning.
Verdict:
The High Court set aside the summoning order dated April 10, 2023 and remanded the matter back to the Magistrate, directing him to pass a fresh, reasoned, and speaking order after considering the entire legal framework and precedents
Case Title:
Divya Srivastava And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. And Another
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 3075 of 2024
Read Order:
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Divorce
