The Delhi High Court has held that allegations made in a complaint to the police do not by themselves amount to defamation, observing that the statement in question must be examined in its proper context and that publication and reputational harm are essential considerations in a civil defamation claim.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna made the observation while dismissing an appeal filed by a practising advocate against the rejection of his Rs. 10 lakh defamation suit against another lawyer.

The dispute arose from a police complaint lodged by the respondent following an altercation between the two advocates at Patiala House Courts in March 2022. In the complaint, the respondent alleged that the appellant had assaulted and threatened him, and described him as influential and having connections with “goons and bad elements of society”.

The appellant claimed that the statement was false, malicious and defamatory, and had been made to damage his reputation within the legal fraternity. He sought ₹10 lakh in damages.

The respondent however contended that the statement had been made in the context of reporting an alleged assault and threat to his life, and that lodging a complaint with the police did not amount to defamation.

The trial court had rejected the suit under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, holding that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action for defamation.

In appeal, the High Court examined whether the statement alleging the appellant's links with “goons and bad elements of society”, made in the police complaint, could be treated as defamatory per se.

It referred to several judicial decisions concerning statements made to law-enforcement authorities and observed that the mere filing of a police complaint 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,” it held.

The Court observed that the statement had to be read in the context of the respondent's allegation that he had been threatened with death and feared for his life.

The Court further noted that the plaint did not contain any specific averment showing that other persons had heard the statement or that the appellant's reputation had been lowered in their estimation.

“No public person has been named, who witnessed the incident and in whose estimation the reputation of the plaintiff, was lowered. Moreover, there is nothing to show that there was any harm caused to the reputation of the Plaintiff.”

The Court also noted that there was nothing to show that the respondent had made the statement with the intention of harming the appellant's reputation.

As such, the Court dismissed the appeal.

For Appellant: Ms. Arunima Gupta, Advocate.

For Respondent: Mr. Ankur Dhall, Advocate.

Jai Gupta v. Sunil Kumar Roy