The Patna HC has held that a person cannot initiate criminal defamation proceedings merely because he is a follower or disciple of the individual allegedly defamed. The Court observed that under Section 199(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), a complaint for criminal defamation must be instituted by a person aggrieved by the alleged offence, and that personal sentiments or association cannot satisfy this statutory requirement.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Alok Kumar Sinha quashed criminal proceedings against Juggernaut Books Pvt. Ltd., the publisher of Godman to Tycoon: The Untold Story of Swami Ramdev, arising from a complaint filed by a follower of Swami Ramdev.

The proceedings arose from a complaint filed by Amit Kumar before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hajipur, Vaishali, on September 6, 2017. The complainant claimed that he had purchased the book on September 1, 2017, after noticing Swami Ramdev's photograph on its cover. Upon reading it, he allegedly found certain statements defamatory to Swami Ramdev. He alleged that the book indirectly held Swami Ramdev responsible for the deaths of Guru Shankaranand, Swami Yogananda and Rajiv Dixit. He further alleged that its portrayal of Swami Ramdev and references to his wearing of gerua vastra had hurt Hindu religious sentiments.

Following the examination of the complainant and two witnesses, the Magistrate took cognizance of offences under Sections 295-A, 500, 501 and 502 IPC through orders dated October 7 and 9, 2017. Challenging these orders, Juggernaut Books approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC.

Senior Advocate Ashish Giri, appearing for the publisher, submitted that the complaint was not maintainable because the alleged defamatory imputations concerned Swami Ramdev and not the complainant personally. He relied on Section 199(1) CrPC, which restricts cognizance of criminal defamation offences to complaints instituted by a person aggrieved.

Examining the issue, the High Court held that the expression person aggrieved under Section 199(1) was a mandatory statutory requirement and not a mere formality. The Court observed:

“The complainant cannot, therefore, step into the position of the person allegedly defamed merely because he is a disciple or a follower of that person. The statutory requirement under Section 199(1) cannot be enlarged on the basis of personal sentiments or association...”

Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in G. Narasimhan, G. Kasturi and K. Gopalan v. T.V. Chokkappa, the Bench clarified that a member of a definite and identifiable class may maintain a defamation complaint where the alleged imputations are directed against that class. However, the Court found that the present complaint did not satisfy this requirement. It noted that the allegations in the book concerned Swami Ramdev personally, while the complainant had not alleged that any statement was directed against his own character, conduct or reputation.

The Bench further observed that merely claiming that numerous followers had been hurt by statements concerning their spiritual leader did not make them a definite and identifiable class for the purposes of Explanation 2 to Section 499 IPC. The Court held that the complainant's association with Swami Ramdev and his personal feelings about the book were insufficient to confer standing to initiate criminal defamation proceedings.

Accordingly, the High Court quashed the Magistrate's orders dated October 7 and 9, 2017, taking cognizance under Sections 295-A, 500, 501 and 502 IPC, along with all consequential proceedings concerning Juggernaut Books.

Appearance:

For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashish Giri, Senior Advocate; Mr. Sumit Kumar Jha, Advocate; Mr. Pranav Kumar, Advocate

For the State: Mr. Ramchandra Sahani, APP

For Opposite Party No. 2: None appeared