Mere Averments In Pleadings To Prosecute Or Defend Case Not Defamation: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that mere averments made in the pleadings, either to prosecute or defend oneself, does not tantamount to an offence of defamation.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said that if a statement is made in a judicial proceeding and is alleged to be false, the appropriate remedy lies for the offence of perjury and not by way of a separate Complaint for defamation.

“…the allegations made by a party in a judicial proceeding, are essentially intended to assert a case which the party believes to be correct and true. Even if the party loses the case, it cannot be said that the same was made with the sole intent to bring disrepute to the other party. A litigant has the right to take all legal pleas available to him, to prosecute or defend his case,” the Court said.

It added: “If every averment made in a judicial proceeding is scrutinized through the lens of defamation while the litigation is still pending, it would stifle the right of a party to approach the Court and present their case diligently, without a fear of being roped in the allegations of Defamation.”

The case arose from a family dispute over the estate of one Sardarni Surinder Kaur Sodhi, who passed away in December 2013. Multiple civil and testamentary proceedings were pending between the parties concerning rival Wills.

During the said proceedings, the petitioner, Harkirat Singh Sodhi made allegations of forgery and dishonest conduct against his brother-in-law- Ravinder Singh Gandoak.

Thereafter, Ravinder Singh Gandoak filed a criminal complaint for defamation against Sodhi, who had then challenged the complaint as well as the summoning order.

Allowing Sodhi's petitions, the Court said that there was nothing to show that the pending litigation, which was yet to be finally adjudicated, had led to any defamation of the Complainant. It added that Sodhi had only set up a defence in the said proceedings, which he was well within his rights to do.

“In the instant case, the allegations have been made in the pleadings but they cannot, by any stretch of interpretation, be claimed to have been circulated in public or having lowered the estimation of the Complainant in the estimation of right thinking members of society, which tends to make them shun or avoid that person,” the Court said.

Title: Mr. Lalit Gupta, Mr. Rajat Asija, Ms. Mansi Singh, Mr. Anmol Ghai, Ms. Ishita Nautiyal and Ms. Shreeyam Kedia, Advocates

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for the State

Title: HARKIRAT SINGH SODHI v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR

Click here to read order