Police complaint not defamation by itself, the Delhi High Court has held, refusing to revive a ₹10 lakh damages suit filed by an advocate against a fellow lawyer who wrote in a complaint that he had “roots in the goons & bad elements of the society.”
New Delhi: Merely lodging a complaint with the police does not, by itself, amount to defamation, the Delhi High Court has held, upholding a District Judge’s decision to reject an advocate’s plaint seeking ₹10 lakh in damages over a single sentence in a fellow advocate’s police complaint [Jai Gupta v. Sunil Kumar Roy].
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna dismissed the Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 read with Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), against the District Judge’s order of 16 August 2024 rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for disclosing no cause of action. The judgment was reserved on 3 September 2026 and pronounced on 27 October 2026.
Police complaint and privilege
Setting out the essential elements of civil defamation, a defamatory statement, its publication, intent or knowledge of harm, and a tendency to lower reputation in society, the Court framed “the most pertinent question” as whether a complaint to the police for redress of grievance attracts protection from a civil action for defamation. It surveyed decisions treating such complaints as privileged as well as the contrary line, including a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Majju v. Lachman Prasad, and concluded:
“The aforesaid judgments indicate that mere filing of a complaint with the Police does not, by itself, constitute defamation. The nature and context of the alleged imputation, the question of publication, and the applicability of privilege must also be considered.”
The sentence read in context
On merits, the Court held that the sentence could not be isolated from the complaint in which it appeared:
“Even on merits, the sole statement on which the Plaintiff has relied has been made in the context of the Defendant fearing for his life and apprehension of a threat from the Plaintiff. When read in that context, the statement cannot be considered defamatory per se.”
The Court also found the plaint wanting on publication:
“Moreover, this statement in the Complaint cannot be termed as publication. Further, there is not a single averment in the Plaint to show that there were other people who heard this particular statement or that the estimation of the Plaintiff was lowered in their eyes.”
On intention, it held that the statement was made in good faith “to protect his own life from the perceived threat from the Plaintiff and not with an intent to harm the reputation of the Plaintiff.” Concluding that the District Judge had rightly rejected the plaint as disclosing no cause of action, the Court dismissed the appeal along with pending applications.
Two advocates, one chamber dispute
The appellant, Jai Gupta, pleaded that he practised at the Patiala House Courts from September 1989 until mid-2018. The respondent, Sunil Kumar Roy, also an advocate there, occupied a neighbouring chamber. The two gave differing accounts of money exchanged in May 2017: Gupta said he lent Roy ₹2 lakh against a post-dated cheque, while Roy said the payment and cheque were bayana for the purchase of a chamber for ₹12 lakh, a deal he alleged Gupta later backed out of.
On 3 March 2022, the two met at the Patiala House Courts and an altercation followed. Each alleged that the other had assaulted or manhandled him, and each lodged a complaint at Police Station Tilak Marg the same day. Gupta separately filed a summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC to recover ₹2 lakh, which the judgment records as pending trial.
The defamation suit rested on one sentence in Roy’s complaint, in which, after alleging a threat to his life, he wrote that Gupta “is very influencing & have roots in the goons & bad elements of the society & I have fear & threat to my life.” Gupta claimed ₹10 lakh with 12 per cent interest, pleading that the statement was false and malicious and would form part of police records seen by several persons. Roy contended that reporting a grievance to the police was not defamation and that no person had been named in whose eyes Gupta’s reputation had been lowered.
The appellant’s arguments and the reply
Gupta argued that the trial court relied on extraneous facts and on judgments that were not in pari materia, and that the “goons” imputation was out of context with the rest of the complaint and defamatory per se, so no proof of damage was needed. He relied on the High Court’s earlier decision in Rakesh Bhardwaj v. Jai Gupta, which had held a defamation suit based on a police complaint maintainable, and urged that a complaint closed without an FIR stood on a different footing. Roy’s counsel replied that the case rested on “a solitary statement” on which no action was taken and that there was no evidence of publication lowering Gupta’s reputation.
Why the judgment matters
The ruling protects the citizen’s ability to approach the police without fear of a retaliatory damages suit over the words used in a complaint. By insisting that an allegedly defamatory line be read in the context of the whole complaint, and that a plaint must plead publication and identify persons in whose eyes reputation was lowered, the Court has set a clear threshold for such suits at the Order VII Rule 11 stage. It also takes note of the divergent case law on whether police complaints are privileged, while resting its decision on context, absence of publication and good faith.
Case Title: Jai Gupta v. Sunil Kumar Roy [RFA 56/2025]
Bench: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, Delhi High Court
Date of Judgment: October 27, 2026
Appearances: Ms. Arunima Gupta, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Ankur Dhall, Advocate, for the Respondent