The Supreme Court quashes defamation case against a newspaper owner for reporting against an advocate holding that the content was published in good faith.

The Supreme Court has allowed an appeal filed by the accused appellant who was facing prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 500 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 in a complaint filed by the respondent-complainant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hoshangabad. The complaint was founded on an allegation that the appellant who is the registered owner of a Daily newspaper named ‘Sunday Blast’ allowed a news article to be published in the edition dated 24th February, 2013 bearing a title “Advocate ne pan masala vyavasayi par karaya jhuta mamla darj”. 
The respondent-complainant filed the subject complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hoshangabad alleging that the appellant had allowed the said news article to be published in his newspaper without ascertaining the true facts and that such publication brought down the reputation of the respondent-complainant in the eyes of the public at large and thus, the accused appellant was liable to be prosecuted for criminal defamation punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The learned Magistrate, after considering the averments made in the complaint and the statement of witnesses examined under Sections 200 and 202 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 rejected the same. The respondent-complainant preferred a revision against the order of the Magistrate, which came to be allowed by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, and the order passed by the learned Magistrate was reversed. The accused appellant challenged the said order by filing MCRC No. 44473 of 2018 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh which dismissed the same vide order dated 29th January, 2020. The order dated 29th January, 2020 and all further proceedings of the complaint were assailed before the Supreme Court.
 
The Supreme Court held thus:

Having considered the entirety of the material available on record, we find that the order dated 12th June, 2017 passed by the learned Magistrate First Class, rejecting the complaint of the respondent-complainant is a well-reasoned order. The learned Magistrate in its order referred to the Fundamental Right of Freedom of Speech and Expression enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and held that the publication in question did not warrant prosecution of the accused appellant for the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 

We are also of the view that the news article in question was published in good faith and in exercise of the Fundamental Right of Freedom of Speech and Expression enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Resultantly, the order dated 15th October, 2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge as well as the order dated 29th January, 2020 passed by the High Court are quashed and set aside.

Sanjay Upadhya Vs. Anand Dubey