Holding

The Supreme Court quashed the criminal complaint and summons, holding that the magistrate’s failure to conduct a mandatory inquiry under Section 202 CrPC and the lack of specific allegations against the editorial director rendered the proceedings unlawful.

Summary

The complainant filed a private criminal defamation complaint under Section 200 CrPC alleging that fourteen news articles published in various newspapers defamed the authenticity of paintings to be auctioned by the complainant. The trial magistrate took cognizance, registered the complaint and issued summons to the accused, including the editorial director and several journalists, without conducting a mandatory inquiry under Section 202 CrPC for those residing outside the magistrate's jurisdiction. The appellants challenged the summons, arguing lack of specific allegations against them, absence of statutory presumption for roles other than editor, and procedural non‑compliance with Section 202. The Supreme Court held that the editor alone attracts a statutory presumption, that the complaint did not specifically allege the editorial director’s control over content, and that the magistrate failed to conduct the required inquiry, rendering the summons and proceedings invalid. Consequently, the Court quashed the criminal complaint and the summons against all appellants, allowing the appeals.

Issues considered

The adequacy of specific allegations against an editorial director under the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 for criminal defamation liability.
Whether the magistrate was required to conduct an inquiry under Section 202 CrPC before issuing summons to accused residing outside its territorial jurisdiction.
The applicability of the statutory presumption of liability to persons other than the editor in defamation cases.
The necessity of establishing reputational harm in the estimation of third parties for a defamation complaint under Section 499 IPC.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 202
Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act (Central Act 25 of 2005)s. 19
Constitution of Indias. Article 19(1)(a)
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 499, s. 500
Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867s. 1, s. 5, s. 7

Subjects

Criminal DefamationAuthenticity of paintingsNews articlesAuction of paintingsInquiry by magistrateEditorial directorDefamatory news articlesTransparency in publicationPrivate complaintIntention to defameStatutory presumption against editorQuashing of complaintsFreedom of speech and expressionPostponement of issue of processSingle complaintDefamatory contentPresumption against editorial directorJurisdiction of magistrateProcedural irregularityPublication of news articles

Judgment

[2025] 3 S.C.R. 234 : 2025 INSC 241

Jaideep Bose
v.
M/s Bid and Hammer Auctioneers Private Limited
(Criminal Appeal No. 814 of 2025)
18 February 2025
[J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan,* JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the petition
filed by the appellants challenging the initiation of the criminal
proceedings against them for the offences u/ss.499 and 500 IPC.

Headnotes†
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.499, 500 – Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 – s.202 – Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 –
Private complaint – Criminal Defamation – Postponement
of issue of process – Inquiry by magistrate before issuing
process – Liability of legal entities other than editor –
Complainant-respondent filed a single complaint against 14
accused u/s.200 CrPC rw ss.499 and 500 IPC pertaining to
different news articles written on different dates and published
in different editions in different States, which contained alleged
defamatory contents regarding the authenticity of certain
paintings to be auctioned by the respondent – Respondent
examined and his statement recorded – Thereafter, the
magistrate took cognizance of the complaint, directed to
register the same and issued summons to the accused –
Appellants-accused and company-A1 sought quashing of
the criminal proceedings initiated against them – High Court
quashed the complaint only in respect of company A1,
however, dismissed as against the appellants – Correctness:
Held: It is the editor who plays a key role in the publication process
bearing responsibility for ensuring that the content published
adheres to legal standards – Merely because the Act, does
not mention persons holding other roles in a publication of the
company, such as Editorial Director, or mandate the publication of

* Author
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 235

Jaideep Bose v.
M/s Bid and Hammer Auctioneers Private Limited

their names, the same does not imply that such persons cannot
be made liable for any defamatory content – Key distinction is
that unlike an editor, against whom a statutory presumption is
imposed, there is no such presumption against the editorial director
at the outset – While the Act does not recognise any other legal
entity-Chief Editor, Managing Editor, etc. for raising a presumption,
such individuals can still be proceeded against, but only when
specific allegations are made against them – Complaint merely
alleges that the appellant A2-editorial director of the company,
oversaw the publications, no other averments made to establish
how A2 was responsible for controlling the selection of contents
of the newspaper publications – Such broad, general or blanket
statement without specific or substantive details cannot justify the
issuance of summons – Moreso, A2 resides in Mumbai, which falls
outside the jurisdiction of the concerned Magistrate – Magistrate
was required to proceed with the complaint in accordance with
s.202(1) Cr.P.C, however, no such inquiry was conducted,
thus, complaint not maintainable against A2 – Regarding other
appellants, all news articles individually authored by the various
accused not considered – High Court referred only to one article
authored by A4 – Mandatory procedure u/s.202 Cr.P.C. not
followed – Magistrate’s order suffers from procedural irregularity –
No material to suggest that the auction was unsuccessful or that
any damage or loss was actually caused, due to the alleged news
articles published in the newspapers – Also no intent to defame
or harm the complainant’s reputation – Thus, impugned order
passed by the High Court, summoning orders by the magistrate
and criminal proceedings initiated against the appellants quashed.
[Paras 19-20, 22]

Constitution of India – Art.19(1)(a) – Right to freedom of speech
and expression – Power of media – Impact on public opinion:
Held: Right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed
u/Art.19(1)(a) is paramount – Those working in the media,
particularly, individuals in key positions, authors, etc., must
exercise utmost caution and responsibility before publishing
any statements, news, or opinions – Power of the media in
shaping public opinion is significant and the press possesses the
ability to influence public sentiments and alter perceptions, with
remarkable speed – Given its vast reach, it has the capability to
236 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

cause severe damage to the reputation of those concerned, with
consequences that may be far-reaching and enduring – Need for
accuracy and fairness in media reporting, having the potential to
impact the integrity of individuals or institutions – In view thereof,
publication of the news articles to be done in public interest and
with good faith. [Para 21]

Case Law Cited
Aroon Purie v. State of NCT of Delhi [2022] 18 SCR 311 : 2022
SCC OnLine SC 1491; Iveco Magirus Brandschutztechnik GMBH
v. Nirmal Kishore Bhartiya [2023] 13 SCR 220 : (2024) 2 SCC 86;
Bloomberg Television Production Services India Private Limited &
Ors. v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited [2024] 3 SCR 994 :
2024 INSC 255; Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Others v. Special Judicial
Magistrate and Others [1997] Supp. 5 SCR 12 : (1998) 5 SCC
749; Abhijit Pawar v. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar [2016] 9 SCR
475 : (2017) 3 SCC 528; K.M. Mathew v. K.A. Abraham [2002]
Supp. 1 SCR 662 : 2002 (6) SCC 670; Gambhirsinh R. Dekare v.
Falgunbhai Chimanbhai Patel [2013] 4 SCR 719 : (2013) 3 SCC
697 – referred to.

List of Acts
Constitution of India; Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973; Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867; Code
of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act (Central Act 25 of 2005).

List of Keywords
Criminal Defamation; Authenticity of paintings; News articles;
Auction of paintings; Inquiry by magistrate; Editorial director;
Defamatory news articles; Transparency in publication; Private
Complaint; Intention to defame; Statutory presumption against
editor; Quashing of complaints; Integrity of individuals; Power of
media; Shaping public opinion; Right to freedom of speech and
expression; Fairness in media reporting; Postponement of issue
of process; Inquiry by magistrate before issuing process; Single
complaint; Defamatory contents regarding authenticity of certain
paintings to be auctioned; Issuance of summons; Legal standards;
Defamatory content; Presumption against editorial director; Outside
the jurisdiction of Magistrate; Procedural irregularity; Publication
of news articles.
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 237

Jaideep Bose v.
M/s Bid and Hammer Auctioneers Private Limited

Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
814 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.06.2024 of the High Court
of Karnataka at Bengaluru in CRLP No. 3829 of 2017
With
Criminal Appeal Nos. 815, 816, 817 of 2025

Appearances for Parties
Ms. Arundhati Katju, Sr. Adv., Aishwarya Kaushiq, Prashant M.S.,
Ravi Bharuka, Rohit Agarwal, Ms. Shristi Borthakur, Yoginder
Handoo, Ashwin Kataria, Advs. for the Appellant.
Pai Amit, Ms. Pankhuri Bhardwaj, Ms. Karishma Naghnoor,
Nikhil Pahwa, Kushal Dube, Abhiyudaya Vats, Tathagata Dutta,
Advs. for the Respondent.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

R. Mahadevan, J.

1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are directed against an order dated 18.06.2024 passed
by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru1 in Criminal Petition
No.3829 of 2017, titled ‘Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd and others
v. M/s. Bid and Hammer Auctioneers Private Limited, arising out of
complaint in PCR No.13146/2014 and CC No.18491 of 2016 pending
on the file of the Court of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bengaluru.2 By the said order, the High Court dismissed the criminal
petition filed by the appellants herein challenging the initiation of the
criminal proceedings against them for the offences under sections
499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,3 however, quashed the

1 Hereinafter referred to as “the High Court”
2 Hereinafter referred to as “the trial Court”
3 For short, “IPC”
238 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

complaint as far as M/s. Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd.4 (Accused
No.1) is concerned.
3. The genesis of the present cases lies in a private complaint dated
22.08.2014 filed by the complainant / respondent herein against
the company and its directors, editors and journalists, numbering
14 accused persons, under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 19735 read with Sections 499 and 500 IPC. The gravamen
of the complaint pertains to certain news articles published in various
newspapers viz., Bangalore Mirror, Mumbai Mirror, The Times of India
(Bangalore, Kolkata, Mumbai, New Delhi, and Pune Editions), and The
Economic Times (New Delhi and Mumbai editions) on 27.06.2014,
28.06.2014, 29.06.2014, 06.07.2014, 07.07.2014, and 20.07.2014
which contained alleged defamatory contents regarding the authenticity
of certain paintings to be auctioned by the respondent herein.
4. Upon receipt of the complaint, the sworn statement of the complainant/
respondent was recorded on 14.11.2014. Thereafter, the trial Court
took cognizance of the complaint and directed to register the same for
the offences under sections 499 and 500 IPC and issue summons to
the accused, vide order dated 29.07.2016. The complaint was received
as PCR No.13146/2014 and later, registered as CC No.18491 of
2016 which is now, pending on the file of the trial Court.
5. Challenging the issuance of summons, the appellants filed Criminal
Petition No.3829 of 2017 before the High Court seeking to quash
the criminal proceedings initiated against them. After due contest,
the High Court dismissed the petition as against the appellants
herein, however, quashed the complaint as far as the company (A1)
is concerned. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants are before us
with the present appeals.

CONTENTIONS
6. The learned counsel for the appellant / Accused No.2 [SLP (Crl.)
No.10212 of 2024] made the following submissions:
(a) The appellant is neither the author of the alleged defamatory
news articles nor editor of any of the newspapers in question;

4 For short, “the company”
5 For short, “Cr.P.C”
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 239

Jaideep Bose v.
M/s Bid and Hammer Auctioneers Private Limited

and he is editorial director of the company; and therefore, he
is not responsible for the publication of the alleged defamatory
news articles.
(b) In the private complaint filed by the respondent, there is no
specific averment regarding the appellant’s role in publishing
the alleged defamatory news articles, except mentioning his
name as the editorial director of the company and thus, he
could not have been arraigned as an accused.
(c) Under the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, it is the
“editor” who controls the selection of matter published in the
newspapers, besides requiring the names of editor, printer, and
publisher to be published in the print line of the newspapers. The
appellant’s name does not appear in the print line of any of the
newspapers that published the news articles in question. The
designation of “Editorial Director” without any specific allegation
about the appellant’s direct involvement in the publication of
the impugned news articles, cannot form the basis for criminal
liability. Therefore, the appellant cannot be held liable for the
alleged offences.
(d) Section 202 Cr.P.C. as amended in 2005, mandates an inquiry
before proceeding against an accused residing outside the
jurisdiction of the Magistrate and this provision aims to prevent
the harassment of persons residing at far-off places through
false complaints. In this case, the Magistrate did not examine
any other witnesses except the complainant and the statement
of the complainant manifestly fail to prove the allegation of
defamation against the appellant. Hence, the failure of complying
with the mandatory provision of Section 202 Cr.P.C. before
issuing process against the appellant, who resides in Mumbai
i.e., outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Bengaluru court,
vitiates the criminal proceedings initiated against him.
(e) The complaint lacks the essential ingredients of criminal
defamation under Section 499 IPC. The explanation to the
said section clearly requires that the imputation must lower the
moral or intellectual character of a person in the estimation of
others. Whereas, the complaint filed by the respondent relies
solely on the complainant’s self-estimation of harm without any
evidence from third parties about reputational damage. Thus,
240 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

the failure to establish reputational harm in the eyes of others,
renders the said complaint unsustainable.
(f) Without properly appreciating all these aspects, merely on
assumption that the appellant being the editorial director, is
overseeing the contents of all the newspapers and responsible
for the publication of alleged defamatory news articles, the High
Court dismissed the criminal petition filed by the appellant, by the
order impugned herein, which has to be set aside by this Court.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant / Accused No.12 [SLP (Crl.)
No.13443/2024] made the following submissions:
(a) The order impugned herein only refers to the article dated
27.06.2014 titled “Fakes at Art Auction Raise Huge Storm”
which was published on the date of auction and was authored
by Ms.Neelam Raj (Accused No.4) and it makes no reference
to the article authored by the appellant.
(b) There is no allegation that the appellant contributed or assisted
or was involved in the said article. Even in the complaint,
there is only a bare allegation that the accused have all, in
connivance with one another, orchestrated a smear campaign
that is intended at ruining the reputation of the complainant and
the news articles have been engineered to appear on the date
of auction. Thus, there is a bald averment to substantiate the
allegation of conspiracy.
(c) The appellant authored a completely different article titled ‘Art’s
Identity Crisis’, which was published on 20.07.2014 i.e., almost
a month after the auction dated 27.06.2014. She did not draw
any conclusion regarding the authenticity of the paintings that
the complainant was auctioning, rather the said article focused
on the challenge of authenticating Indian art and how it depends
less on science and more on an artist’s family in India. Therefore,
the appellant’s article was not defamatory and did not constitute
the offence under section 499/500 IPC.
(d) Reliance was also placed on the decisions of this Court in
Aroon Purie v. State of NCT of Delhi6 and Iveco Magirus

6 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1491
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 241

Jaideep Bose v.
M/s Bid and Hammer Auctioneers Private Limited

Brandschutztechnik GMBH v. Nirmal Kishore Bhartiya,7 wherein,
it was held that there exists no bar that the exceptions to section
499 IPC can be regarded only at the stage of trial.
(e) However, the High Court on the basis of the article authored by
the Accused No.4 and without having applied judicial mind to the
article allegedly authored by the appellant, erred in upholding
the complaint and criminal proceedings emanating therefrom
before the Magistrate.
(f) The Magistrate except the complainant, did not examine any
other witnesses. The appellant resides in Mumbai, i.e., outside
the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate Court, but no inquiry
was conducted before issuance of summons, and thus, there
was no substantial compliance of the mandatory procedure
under section 202 Cr.P.C. Hence, the summoning order was
bad in law.
(g) Mere factual reference to another allegedly defamatory article
or recording of a third-party view by a journalist cannot be held
as defamatory and doing so would severely impact freedom
of press and places the appellant in jeopardy of being a victim
of the law of land being incorrectly applied against her and
causing a miscarriage of justice.
(h) It is alleged that the complainant appears to be a serial litigator
taking recourse to the criminal process only to stifle the freedom
of speech and expression of the press when art experts began
to question the authenticity of the paintings being sold by the
complainant in its auction.
(i) This Court in Bloomberg Television Production Services India
Private Limited & Ors. v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited,8
has recognized that the constitutional mandate of protecting
journalistic expression cannot be understated.
(j) Similar defamation complaint filed by the respondent was
quashed by this Court vide judgment dated 20.07.2022 passed
in Criminal Appeal No.1008 of 2022 arising out of SLP (Crl)

7 (2024) 2 SCC 86
8 2024 INSC 255
242 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

No.6732/2019 titled ‘M/s. DAG Pvt. Ltd v. Bid & Hammer
Auctioneers (P) Ltd.
With these submissions, learned counsel prayed to allow the appeal
and quash the criminal proceedings initiated against this appellant.
8. The learned counsel for the appellants / Accused Nos.8, 9, 10 and
13 [SLP (Crl.) No. 15653 of 2024] made the following submissions:
(a) The trial court overlooked the news articles written by the
appellants and erred in issuing process only on the basis of
the respondent’s interpretation of the news articles made in
the complaint and his sworn statement. Even the High Court
in the impugned order, referred to only the article written by
Ms. Neelam Raj (Accused No.4) and did not consider the news
articles written by the appellants to see whether the same were
defamatory or not.
(b) The Respondent in paragraph 16 of the complaint stated that
Accused No.5-Maulik Vyas and the Appellant No.4 (Accused
No.13) co-authored the article dated 27.06.2014 in the Economic
Times, however, a bare perusal of the said article shows that it
is said to be authored by Accused no 5-Maulik Vyas and only
inputs are said to have been given by Accused No.13. This
article only provides information about exchange of legal notices
and mentions the comments of the advocate of the respondent.
(c) Since all the appellants are having office/residents at Mumbai
and Kolkata i.e., outside the territorial jurisdiction, the Magistrate
ought to have conducted inquiry as required section 202 Cr.PC,
by examining witnesses other than the complainant before
issuing process, which was not done.
(d) No reasons have been given in the summoning order, with
respect to delineating the role of each accused, in light of the
judgement of this Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Others v.
Special Judicial Magistrate and Others.9
(e) The respondent did not adduce any legal evidence and his
statement manifestly failed to prove the allegation of defamation
against the appellants.

9 (1998) 5 SCC 749
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 243

Jaideep Bose v.
M/s Bid and Hammer Auctioneers Private Limited

(f) The complaint was also fundamentally flawed as self-estimation
is not defamation. Since no witness has come to say that
complainant has fallen in its estimation/ no third person had
come before the Magistrate to even prima facie claim that
the reputation of the Respondent had been lowered in their
estimation.
Stating so, the learned counsel sought to quash the criminal
proceedings initiated against the appellants based on the private
complaint filed by the respondent.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant / Accused No.4 [SLP (Crl.)
No.16153 / 2024] made the following submissions:
(a) The appellant wrote two news articles, which were carried in
different editions using different headlines as decided by the
desk. It was stated that portions of an article get deleted as
per the discretion of the editor of that edition. The impugned
order of the High Court discussed only one article and remained
completely silent on the other article of the appellant and hence,
it is liable to be set aside.
(b) The news articles merely state that experts have raised
questions without making assumptions / conclusions against
the respondent and therefore, the same would not constitute
the offence of defamation.
(c) Further, the news articles were published by the appellant
in furtherance of an article previously published in The
Indian Express, which was already in public domain, and the
subsequent debate initiated by Samindranath Majumdar on
social networking websites.
(d) In the article published, the statement of various art experts
and family members of artists, such as, Rukhsana Pathan Ara,
Susobhan Adhikary, Prof.R.Sivakumar, Balaka Bhattacharjee,
Ashish Anand, Rajani Prasanna Hebbar has been quoted; and
no judgment on any works of art was given by the appellant.
However, the trial court without looking into the entire contents of
the publication, issued process on the basis of the respondent’s
interpretation of the news articles in the complaint and his
sworn statement.
244 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

(e) The respondent did not adduce any legal evidence and also
the statements of the complainant manifestly fail to prove the
allegation of defamation. Further, the summoning order was
fundamentally flawed as no third person had come before the
Magistrate to even prima facie state that the reputation of the
respondent had been lowered in their estimation. In the absence
of this material, the very summoning order is bad in law.
(f) Without considering all these aspects, the High Court erred in
dismissing the criminal petition by the order impugned herein,
which suffers from serious and glaring infirmities and is hence,
liable to be set aside.
10. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the complainant /
respondent submitted that the complainant enjoys a rich legacy
that is enviable having been incorporated by persons of impeccable
character and reputation. In contrast, the defamatory news articles
have had a serious and adverse impact on the reputation of the
complainant company. The news articles were widely circulated and
caused considerable harm to the company’s business interests. As
a result, the company’s reputation has been significantly tarnished,
and its credibility has been undermined in the eyes of its clients,
partners, and the public. In light of the substantial reputational damage
caused, the respondent preferred a private complaint under Section
200 Cr.P.C., against the accused for committing defamation. The
Magistrate after careful consideration of the defamatory nature of
the news articles in question, directed to register the complaint and
issue summons to the accused.
10.1. The learned counsel further submitted that the complaint
itself establishes the appellants’ role in the publication of the
defamatory news articles in the newspapers. The complainant
has sufficiently outlined the defamatory nature of the news
articles, which caused harm to their reputation. The issuance
of summons by the trial Court is consistent with the legal
principles governing the stage of cognizance and process
issuance, where a detailed inquiry into the merits of the case
is not required. That apart, the High Court’s observations,
including those in paragraph 3 of the impugned order, are
based on a prima facie appreciation of the facts and do not
amount to prejudging the case. It is well-settled that at the
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 245

Jaideep Bose v.
M/s Bid and Hammer Auctioneers Private Limited

stage of summoning, the complainant need not prove their
case beyond doubt; a mere prima facie case suffices. Thus,
according to the learned counsel, the High Court correctly
dismissed the challenge to the summons and the same need
not be interfered with by this court.
11. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides and
also perused the materials available on record.
12. Vide order dated 12.08.202410 in SLP (Criminal) No.10212 of 2024,
this Court granted an order of interim stay of all further proceedings in
connection with Complaint Case No.18491/2016 until further orders.
Similar order was passed by this Court in SLP (Criminal) No.13443
of 2024 as well, on 14.10.2024. Consequently, such benefit was
also extended to the appellant in SLP (Criminal) No.15653 of 2024
and the appellants in SLP (Criminal) No.16153 of 2024, vide orders
dated 11.11.2024 and 14.11.2024 respectively.

LEGAL PROVISIONS
13. At the outset, we refer to the relevant legal provisions applicable to
the present case, as outlined below:

(a) The Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867

Section 1 – Interpretation clause
‘Editor’ means the person who controls the selection of
the matter that is published in a newspaper.
‘Newspaper’ means any printed periodical work containing
public news or comments on public news

10 The petitioner is the Editorial Director of Bennett Coleman and Company Limited. Mr.R.Basant, senior
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that:
(i) The complaint lacks specific allegations of acts or omission by the petitioner (except allegations of a
general nature);
(ii) The High Court erroneously assumed that the petitioner is the Editor of all the newspapers and
publications of the Bannett Coleman and Company Ltd and is, therefore, responsible for all their
contents; and
(iii) Separate individuals have been designated under Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books
Act 1867 and hence the complaint of defamation against the petitioner was not maintainable.
3 Issue notice returnable on 9 September 2024.
4 Pending further orders, there shall be a stay of further proceedings in connection with Complaint Case
No 18491/2016.
246 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Section 5
Rules as to publication of newspapers. No newspaper
shall be published in India, except in conformity with the
rules hereinafter laid down:
(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of section 3, every copy
of every such newspaper shall contain the names of the owner
and editor thereof printed clearly on such copy and also the
date of its publication.
(2) ……”

Section 7
“Office copy of declaration to be prima facie evidence.
In any legal proceeding whatever, as well civil as criminal,
the production of a copy of such declaration as is aforesaid,
attested by the seal of some Court empowered by this Act
to have the custody of such declarations, or, in the case of
the editor, a copy of the newspaper containing his name
printed on it as that of the editor shall be held (unless the
contrary be proved) to be sufficient evidence, as against the
person whose name shall be subscribed to such declaration,
or printed on such newspaper, as the case may be, that the
said person was printer or publisher, or printer and publisher
(according as the words of the said declaration may be)
of every portion of every newspaper whereof the title shall
correspond with the title of the newspaper mentioned in
the declaration, or the editor of every portion of that issue
of the newspaper of which a copy is produced.”
13.1. It is vivid from the above provisions that every newspaper
must clearly mention the names of its owner and editor,
ensuring transparency in publication. Furthermore, a statutory
presumption is cast upon the editor, who is responsible for the
selection of content that is subsequently published, making him
accountable for the same unless proven otherwise.

(b) Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section 499
Defamation. Whoever, by words either spoken or intended
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 247

Jaideep Bose v.
M/s Bid and Hammer Auctioneers Private Limited

to be read, or by signs or by visible representations,
makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person
intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe
that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such
person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected,
to defame that person.
Explanation 1.— It may amount to defamation to impute
anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would
harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended
to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near
relatives.
Explanation 2.— It may amount to defamation to make
an imputation concerning a company or an association or
collection of persons as such.
Explanation 3.— An imputation in the form of an alternative
or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation.
Explanation 4.— No imputation is said to harm a person’s
reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in
the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual
character of that person, or lowers the character of that
person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers
the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that
the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a
state generally considered as disgraceful.
Section 500
Punishment for defamation. Whoever defames another
shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term
which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
13.2. From the above provisions, it is clear that defamation under
section 499 IPC necessitates both an intention to harm or
knowledge that the imputation is likely to cause harm, and that
the imputation must be capable of lowering the reputation of the
person in the estimation of others. In other words, the essence
of defamation lies not merely in the making of an imputation but
in its effect on the perception of the public, thereby impacting
the standing of the person in society.
248 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

(c) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

Section 202

Postponement of issue of process.
(1) Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence
of which he is authorised to take cognizance or which
has been made over to him under section 192 may,
if he thinks fit, [and shall, in a case where the
accused is residing at a place beyond the area
in which he exercises his jurisdiction] [Inserted
by Act 25 of 2005, Section 19 (w.e.f. 23-6-2006).]
postpone the issue of process against the accused,
and either inquire into the case himself or direct an
investigation to be made by a police officer or by
such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose
of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground
for proceeding :
Provided that no such direction for investigation shall be made, -
(a) where it appears to the Magistrate that the offence
complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of
Session; or
(b) where the complaint has not been made by a Court,
unless the complainant and the witnesses present (if
any) have been examined on oath under section 200.
(2) In an inquiry under sub-section (1), the Magistrate may,
if he thinks fit, take evidence of witnesses on oath:
Provided that if it appears to the Magistrate that the offence
complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall
call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine
them on oath.
(3) If an investigation under sub-section (1) is made by a
person not being a police officer, he shall have for that
investigation all the powers conferred by this Court
on an officer-in-charge of a police station except the
power to arrest without warrant.”
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 249

Jaideep Bose v.
M/s Bid and Hammer Auctioneers Private Limited

13.3. The above provision clearly stipulates that upon receiving a
private complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate
must mandatorily conduct an inquiry or investigation before
proceeding to issue process against the accused, if such
accused resides outside the jurisdiction of the Court. In
other words, the Magistrate must examine witnesses before
issuing summons in cases where the accused resides outside
the Magistrate’s jurisdiction. This mandatory requirement of
inquiry or investigation was introduced through section 19 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act (Central
Act 25 of 2005) which came into effect from 23.06.2006 by
introducing the words ‘and shall, in a case where the accused
is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises
his jurisdiction’.
13.4. The above requirement has been eruditely elucidated by this
Court in Abhijit Pawar v. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar.11 The
relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are extracted below:
“23. Admitted position in law is that in those
cases where the accused is residing at a
place beyond the area in which the Magistrate
exercises his jurisdiction, it is mandatory
on the part of the Magistrate to conduct an
enquiry or investigation before issuing the
process. Section 202 CrPC was amended in the
year 2005 by the Code of Criminal Procedure
(Amendment) Act, 2005, with effect from 22-
6-2006 by adding the words “and shall, in
a case where the accused is residing at a
place beyond the area in which he exercises
his jurisdiction”. There is a vital purpose or
objective behind this amendment, namely, to
ward off false complaints against such persons
residing at a far-off places in order to save
them from unnecessary harassment. Thus,
the amended provision casts an obligation
on the Magistrate to conduct enquiry or direct

11 (2017) 3 SCC 528
250 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

investigation before issuing the process, so
that false complaints are filtered and rejected.
The aforesaid purpose is specifically mentioned
in the note appended to the Bill proposing the
said amendment.
24. The essence and purpose of this amendment
has been captured by this Court in Vijay
Dhanuka v. Najima Mamtaj [Vijay Dhanuka v. Najima
Mamtaj, (2014) 14 SCC 638: (2015) 1 SCC (Cri)
479] in the following words: (SCC p. 644, paras
11-12)
“11. Section 202 of the Code, inter alia, contemplates
postponement of the issue of the process ‘in a case
where the accused is residing at a place beyond
the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction’
and thereafter to either inquire into the case by
himself or direct an investigation to be made by a
police officer or by such other person as he thinks
fit. In the face of it, what needs our determination
is as to whether in a case where the accused is
residing at a place beyond the area in which the
Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction, inquiry is
mandatory or not.
12. The words ‘and shall, in a case where the
accused is residing at a place beyond the area in
which he exercises his jurisdiction’ were inserted
by Section 19 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(Amendment) Act (Central Act 25 of 2005) w.e.f.
23-6-2006. The aforesaid amendment, in the
opinion of the legislature, was essential as false
complaints are filed against persons residing at
far-off places in order to harass them. The note
for the amendment reads as follows:
‘False complaints are filed against persons residing
at far-off places simply to harass them. In order
to see that innocent persons are not harassed by
unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend
sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 251

Jaideep Bose v.
M/s Bid and Hammer Auctioneers Private Limited

upon the Magistrate that before summoning the
accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall
enquire into the case himself or direct investigation
to be made by a police officer or by such other
person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or
not there was sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused.’
The use of the expression “shall” prima facie
makes the inquiry or the investigation, as the case
may be, by the Magistrate mandatory. The word
“shall” is ordinarily mandatory but sometimes,
taking into account the context or the intention,
it can be held to be directory. The use of the
word “shall” in all circumstances is not decisive.
Bearing in mind the aforesaid principle, when
we look to the intention of the legislature, we
find that it is aimed to prevent innocent persons
from harassment by unscrupulous persons from
false complaints. Hence, in our opinion, the use
of the expression “shall” and the background
and the purpose for which the amendment has
been brought, we have no doubt in our mind that
inquiry or the investigation, as the case may be,
is mandatory before summons are issued against
the accused living beyond the territorial jurisdiction
of the Magistrate.”
26. The requirement of conducting enquiry or
directing investigation before issuing process
is, therefore, not an empty formality. What kind
of “enquiry” is needed under this provision has
also been explained in Vijay Dhanuka case [Vijay
Dhanuka v. Najima Mamtaj, (2014) 14 SCC 638:
(2015) 1 SCC (Cri) 479], which is reproduced
hereunder: (SCC p. 645, para 14)
“14. In view of our answer to the aforesaid question,
the next question which falls for our determination
is whether the learned Magistrate before issuing
summons has held the inquiry as mandated under
252 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Section 202 of the Code. The word “inquiry” has
been defined under Section 2(g) of the Code, the
same reads as follows:
‘2. (g) “inquiry” means every inquiry, other than a
trial, conducted under this Code by a Magistrate
or court;’
It is evident from the aforesaid provision,
every inquiry other than a trial conducted by
the Magistrate or the court is an inquiry. No
specific mode or manner of inquiry is provided
under Section 202 of the Code. In the inquiry
envisaged under Section 202 of the Code, the
witnesses are examined whereas under Section
200 of the Code, examination of the complainant
only is necessary with the option of examining
the witnesses present, if any. This exercise
by the Magistrate, for the purpose of deciding
whether or not there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused, is nothing
but an inquiry envisaged under Section 202
of the Code.”
27. When we peruse the summoning order, we
find that it does not reflect any such inquiry.
No doubt, the order mentioned that the learned
Magistrate had passed the same after reading
the complaint, verification statement of the
complainant and after perusing the copies of
documents filed on record i.e. FIR translation
of the complaint, affidavit of advocate who had
translated the FIR into English, etc…
28. Insofar as these two accused persons are
concerned, there is no enquiry of the nature
enumerated in Section 202 CrPC.
29. The learned Magistrate did not look into
the matter keeping in view the provisions of
Section 7 of the Press Act and applying his
mind whether there is any declaration qua
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 253

Jaideep Bose v.
M/s Bid and Hammer Auctioneers Private Limited

these two persons under the said Act and, if
not, on what basis they are to be proceeded
with along with the Editors. Application of mind
on this aspect was necessary. It is made clear
that this Court is not suggesting that these two
accused persons cannot be proceeded with at
all only because of absence of their names in
the declaration under the Press Act. What is
emphasised is that there is no presumption
against these persons under Section 7 of the
Press Act and they being outside the territorial
jurisdiction of the Magistrate concerned, the
Magistrate was required to apply his mind on
these aspects while passing summoning orders
qua A-1 and A-2.

DISCUSSIONS AND FINDINGS
14. It appears to us that the complainant / respondent herein preferred
a single complaint against 14 accused for different news articles
written on different dates and published in different editions in different
States of the Country, viz., Delhi, Kolkata, Mumbai, Bangalore and
Pune. Upon receipt of the complaint, the respondent was examined
and his sworn statement was recorded. Thereafter, the Magistrate
took cognizance of the complaint and directed to register the same
and issue summons to the accused. Consequently, the company
(A1) and the appellants herein preferred criminal petition before the
High Court to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them.
Vide order dated 18.06.2024, the High Court quashed the complaint
only in respect of the Accused No.1 – Bennett Coleman and Co.
Ltd., and dismissed the criminal petition insofar as the appellants
are concerned. Therefore, these criminal appeals are filed by the
appellants.
15. According to the complainant / respondent herein, the defamatory
news articles printed, published and circulated by all the accused
caused readers to view the complainant with suspicion and also
fostered an unjustifiable and unfounded public opinion that the works
offered for sale by the complainant through public auction could be
fake. It was further alleged in the complaint that the second accused
being the editorial director of the company (A1), oversaw the contents
254 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

of the newspapers and was responsible for news articles’ publication;
and all other accused, in connivance with each other published
various news articles in various newspapers with an intent to scuttle
the success of the complainant’s auction by harming its reputation or
lowering its image in the estimation of the public, thereby committing
the offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 IPC.
16. On the other hand, the appellants entirely refuted the allegations raised
in the complaint filed by the respondent. While they have commonly
contended that the Magistrate failed to comply with the procedure
mandated under section 202 Cr.P.C., their individual responses to
the specific allegations regarding their respective publications are
tabulated below for ease of reference:
Name of the Details of Publication Responses to the allegations
appellant /
accused

Jaideep Bose – A2 Editorial Director of the He neither authored nor was connected with
S L P ( C r l . ) N o . Company (A1) the publication of the alleged news articles and
10212/2024 hence, he cannot be held liable for the same.

Nergish Sunavala 20.07.2014 Times of India The article pertaining to the appellant was
– A12 purely based on existing public discourse and
previously published material by other reputed
SLP (Crl.) No. sources. There was no intention to defame
13443/2024 the respondent and the article was aimed at
informing the public about matters of significant
interest and concern. No Judgment or any
insinuations was made.
Swati Deshpande – 28.06.2014 The article on the face of it, is not defamatory. A
A8 Times of India Mumbai holistic reading of the article rather shows that a
balanced view was taken as it merely presents
Appellant No.1 in SLP the views of all parties concerned, including the
(Crl.) No.15653/2024 complainant. There is nothing in the article to
suggest any intention or knowledge of causing
disrepute to the complainant.
Shubro Niyogi 29.06.2014 The article nowhere mentions the name of the
– A9 Times of India, Kolkata complainant, rather only reports on calls by art
Appellant No.2 in SLP experts for the creation of a panel of experts
(Crl.) No.15653/2024 to scrutinize authenticity of artworks. There
was no intention to disrepute the complainant.
When read in its entirety, the article cannot be
considered as defamatory.
Ratnottam 06.07.2014 A reading of article shows that it merely reports
Sengupta – Times of India on the controversy surrounding artworks and
A10 Kolkata in a balanced manner, includes the comments
and the position of the complainant, while also
Appellant No.3 in SLP presenting the views of various other experts
(Crl.) No.15653/2024 in the art-field. The reading of the article in its
entirety does not constitute defamation.
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 255

Jaideep Bose v.
M/s Bid and Hammer Auctioneers Private Limited

Rashmi Menon 27.06.2014 The article clearly shows that the appellant only
– A13 Economic Times, New Delhi gave certain inputs. Regardless, a reading of
Appellant No.4 in SLP the article shows that it merely reports on M. F.
(Crl.) No.15653/2024 Hussain Foundation having sent a legal notice
to the complainant, while also displaying the
response of the complainant, which at that time
had expressed that it was not aware of such
notice. This article in no manner can be said
to be defamatory.
Neelam Raj – 27.06.2014 A reading of the news articles authored by the
A4 Times of India, Bangalore appellant cannot be said to be defamatory. These
27.06.2014 Times of India, news articles, read in their entirety, merely report
Appellant in SLP New Delhi on the views of art experts and cautions people at
(Crl.) No. 16153/2024 2 7 . 0 6 . 2 0 1 4 , Ti m e s o f large regarding fake art and nothing more. None
India,Mumbai of the news articles, suggests that there was any
intention to harm the complainant’s reputation.
27.06.2014 Times of India,
Pune

28.06.2014 Times of India,
Bangalore

17. Before appreciating the rival contentions, it is necessary to look into
the specific allegations raised in the complaint against each of the
appellants, which are extracted as under:
“2. ……The second accused is the editorial director of the
first accused. The third accused is the executive editor of
the first accused. The second and third accused oversee
the content of the newspapers and are responsible for
the contents….
12. On 27.06.2014, the fourth accused, Ms. Neelam
Raj, wrote an article that carried the headline, “Fakes at
Art Auction Raise Huge Storm”. On the front page of the
Times of India, Bangalore Edition itself and right under this
headline, there is a reference to the complainant by name.
The article continues on page 14 with another headline,
“Biggest Counterfeit Indian Art Controversy Hits Auction”.
Under this headline, there are further states, “A copy or two
has cropped up in the most respected of auction houses
but Bangalore based Bid and Hammer’s forthcoming
auction has been assailed by what perhaps is the biggest
controversy to come to light in the Indian art market”.
The article also alleges that the accused tried to contact
the complainant’s chairman, but was unsuccessful. The
complainant never received such calls and it is unethical
256 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

and wrong to publish an article without even clarifying the
facts. It also asserts that the complainant was “caught” in
a similar controversy in 2010 over the work of a Souza
work. Further, incidents and works that have nothing to do
with the complainant are narrated, giving the reader the
impression that the complainant is involved in these works
also and is a habitual dealer in fake arts and paintings…
13. These allegations and insinuations are clearly and
palpably false and render a highly negative image of
the works brought to auction by the complainant after
extensive study and verification at considerable cost and
despite the highly credible process of authentication of
each work brought out on auction. The allegations also
defame eminent consignors such as granddaughter of
Maharaja of Burdwan, Namrata Shirodkar and Mahesh
Babu and others.
14. On 27.06.2014 itself, the fourth accused, Ms. Neelam
Raj, further authored similar insinuations in the Delhi,
Mumbai, and Pune editions of the Times of India under
the heading, “Controversy Over Fakes Hits Art Auction”
on the front page. On the 12th page of the same edition
under the headline, “Experts Question Authenticity of
Signatures dates in auction Art”…
15. The said accused followed this up with another
defamatory article on 28.06.2014, the day after the auction
with the headline, “More Fake Trouble for Indian Art Mart.
The article starts with the words, “Fake” alleging that it
continued to cause a tizzy in the art world especially
concerning the works featured in the auction of the
complainant.
16. On 27.06.2014, the fifth accused. Mr. Maulik Vyas and
Ms. Rashmi Menon, the thirteenth accused, co-authored
an article in the Economic Times with the headline,
“Legal Notice Over Fake Hussains” including on the first
page. The article refers to a legal notice issued to the
complainant on the very day that the notice was sent
and even before it was received by the complainant. This
clearly shows the intention of the article was to defame
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 257

Jaideep Bose v.
M/s Bid and Hammer Auctioneers Private Limited

the complainant, knowing fully well that readers of the
Economic Times include leading industrialists, who are
well known connoisseurs to art and potential customers
of the complainant…. It is pertinent to note that the
said two accused conveniently ignored the rebuttal and
clarifications issued by the complainant against the false
charges levelled on the complainant, despite this rebuttal
being sent to them well in time for publication the following
day. This shows the mala fide intent to defame the
complainant, in fact. Subsequently, the thirteenth accused,
Ms. Rashmi Menon, confirmed receipt of the rebuttal from
the complainant. When asked why she did not publish the
rebuttal, she stopped replying / corresponding with the
complainant. This shows the mala fide intent to defame
the complainant.
18. On 13.06.2014, the eighth accused, Ms. Swati
Deshpande, authored an article in the Times of India,
Mumbai Edition with the headline, “Auction House Denies
22 Hussain Works are Fake”. The article refers to the
details of the legal notice and reply, thus casting doubts
over the work of the complainant. This is an insinuation
that has tarnished the image of the complainant.
19. On 29.06.2014, the ninth accused Mr. Shubro Niyogi,
authored an article in the Times of India, Kolkata Edition
insinuates that the auction held by the complainant
contained fakes. The mala fide intention of the ninth
accused is clearly established from the fact that the
paintings published in support of the article were not
even featured in the catalogue as they did not form part
of the auction. So the accused was not even aware of
the paintings at the auction but took it upon himself to
call them fakes. This insinuation has tarnished the image
of the complainant.
20. On 06.07.2014, the tenth accused. Mr. Rathnotham
Sengupta, authored an article in the Times of India, Kolkata
Edition, with the headlines “Who Speaks the Last Word on
Fakes”. The article specifically insinuates that Lots 82 and
83 of the auction held by the complainant were identified
258 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

as fakes. This insinuation has tarnished the image of the
complainant.
22. 20.07.2014, the Twelfth accused, Ms. Nargish
Sunavala, authored an article in the Times of India,
Bangalore Edition, insinuating that the works auctioned
by the complainant do not have proper authenticity
certificates, deliberately suppressing the crucial processes
involved in the complainant’s auction, which was in the
public domain. This insinuation has tarnished the image
of the complainant.”
18. It is not in dispute that the appellant (A2) Jaideep Bose is the Editorial
Director of the company and other appellants are authors of the
alleged defamatory news articles published in various newspapers.
The respondent filed a single private complaint against the accused
for committing the offence of defamation.
19. Let us first deal with the case of the appellant (A2) Jaideep Bose,
who stands on a different footing from the other accused. He is
serving as the Editorial Director of the company, which is the owner
of all the newspapers in question. According to him, he is neither
the author nor the editor of the news articles in question and his
role is merely administrative in nature, with no direct involvement in
the publication process. He further states that there was procedural
irregularity in the process of issuance of summons as he resides in
Mumbai, which falls outside the jurisdiction of the Court, and hence,
the Magistrate was required to conduct an inquiry by examining
witnesses as mandated under Section 202 Cr.P.C.
19.1. As already reiterated, it is the editor who plays a key role in
the publication process bearing responsibility for ensuring
that the content published adheres to legal standards,
including laws surrounding defamation. It is well settled that
the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (“the Act”)
imposes a higher degree of responsibility and liability on an
editor. Section 5 of the Act mandates that every newspaper
or periodical publication must specify the name of the editor
and owner. Section 7 creates a rebuttable presumption that
the editor whose name is printed in the newspaper shall be
held to be the editor in any civil or criminal proceedings in
respect of that publication. Since an “editor” has been defined
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 259

Jaideep Bose v.
M/s Bid and Hammer Auctioneers Private Limited

as the person who controls the selection of the matter that
is published in a newspaper, the presumption goes to the
extent of holding that he was the person, who controlled the
selection of the matter that was published in the newspaper.
However, merely because the Act does not mention persons
holding other roles in a publication of the company, such as an
Editorial Director, or mandate the publication of their names,
the same does not imply that such persons cannot be made
liable for any defamatory content. The key distinction is that
unlike an editor, against whom a statutory presumption is
imposed, there is no such presumption against the editorial
director at the outset [See: K.M. Mathew v. K.A. Abraham12].
19.2. Turning to the complaint, which is also necessary in it, are
specific allegations regarding the role of the accused in the
publication process. This Court in Gambhirsinh R. Dekare
v. Falgunbhai Chimanbhai Patel13 observed that while the
Act does not recognise any other legal entity viz. Chief
Editor, Managing Editor, etc. for raising a presumption, such
individuals can still be proceeded against, but only when
specific allegations are made against them. In the present
case, the complaint merely alleges that the appellant (A2)
oversaw the publications. No other averments were made
to establish as to how the appellant (A2) was responsible
for controlling the selection of contents of the newspaper
publications. Furthermore, as already stated above, he is
the editorial director of the company and not of the individual
newspapers. Thus, in our view, such a broad, general or
blanket statement without specific or substantive details
cannot justify the issuance of summons.
19.3. The Magistrate, without a proper examination and inquiry,
proceeded to issue summons to the appellant (A2). It is
also pertinent to note here that the appellant (A2) resides in
Mumbai, which falls outside the jurisdiction of the concerned
Magistrate. In such a scenario, as discussed earlier, the
Magistrate was required to proceed with the complaint in

12 2002 (6) SCC 670
13 (2013) 3 SCC 697
260 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

accordance with section 202(1) Cr.P.C. However, no such
inquiry was conducted in the present case. Therefore,
considering all these aspects, we are of the opinion that
the complaint is not maintainable against the appellant (A2).
20. Regarding the appellants in the other appeals, it is evident from the
orders of the trial Court as well as the High Court that not all news
articles individually authored by the various accused were considered.
While passing the impugned order, the High Court referred only to one
article authored by Ms. Neelam Raj (A4) and neither took into account
nor discussed the other news articles authored by the remaining
accused. Furthermore, the mandatory procedure under section 202
Cr.P.C., was clearly not followed. The Appellants viz., A8, A9, A10,
A12 and A13 reside in Mumbai / Kolkata, whereas the complaint was
filed in Bangalore. The complainant failed to produce any witness to
prima facie establish that the alleged imputations had lowered their
reputation in the estimation of others and the Magistrate, after merely
reviewing the complainant’s statement, proceeded to issue summons.
Thus, the Magistrate’s order clearly suffers from procedural irregularity.
Ordinarily, such irregularities would warrant a remand. However, in
the present case, the auction was conducted on 27.06.2014 and
the complaint was filed on 22.08.2014. No material has also been
placed before us to suggest that the auction was unsuccessful or that
any damage or loss was actually caused, due to the alleged news
articles published in the newspapers. Irrespective of the same, at
this stage, remanding the matter for fresh examination of witnesses
before issuance of summons would serve no useful purpose, given
the remote likelihood of securing witnesses. It would only prolong the
litigation yielding little to no benefit especially, since the auction has
already concluded and more than a decade has passed. We also take
note of the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants that
there is no intent to defame or harm the complainant’s reputation.
Notably, this Court vide common order dated 20.07.2022 titled ‘M/s.
DAG Pvt. Ltd. V. M/s.Bid & Hammer Auctioneers (P) Ltd.’ allowed
similar criminal appeals bearing Nos. 1008/2022 etc. cases, arising
from the complaint filed by the same complainant. In view of the
above stated reasons, to meet the ends of justice, we are inclined to
quash the order passed by the High Court as well as the issuance of
summons by the Magistrate. Consequently, the criminal proceedings
initiated against the appellants are also liable to be quashed.
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 261

Jaideep Bose v.
M/s Bid and Hammer Auctioneers Private Limited

21. Before parting, we find it necessary to emphasise that right to
freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)
(a) of the Constitution of India is paramount. At the same time, it is
reiterated that those working in the media, particularly, individuals
in key positions, authors, etc., must exercise utmost caution and
responsibility before publishing any statements, news, or opinions.
The power of the media in shaping public opinion is significant and
the press possesses the ability to influence public sentiments and
alter perceptions, with remarkable speed. As aptly stated by Bulwer
Lytton, “The Pen is mightier than the sword”. Given its vast reach, a
single article or report can resonate with millions, shaping their beliefs
and judgments, and it has the capability to cause severe damage
to the reputation of those concerned, with consequences that may
be far-reaching and enduring. This highlights the critical need for
accuracy and fairness in media reporting, especially when dealing
with matters having the potential to impact the integrity of individuals
or institutions. Keeping these aspects in mind, publication of the
news articles must be done in public interest and with good faith.
22. With the aforesaid observations, we allow all these appeals and
quash the impugned order passed by the High Court and summoning
orders as well as the criminal complaint filed by the respondent, as
far as the appellants herein are concerned. Connected Miscellaneous
Application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Result of the case: Appeals allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain