A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

Judgment analysed: Jaideep Bose v. M/s Bid and Hammer Auctioneers Private Limited (Supreme Court dated 18 February 2025). The Court considered whether a single private complaint under s.200 Cr.P.C. read with ss.499–500 IPC could properly summon fourteen persons (editors, editorial director and journalists) for allegedly defamatory news articles published across different editions and dates.

The apex court examined the interplay between the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (statutory presumption in s.7 in favour of the named editor), the obligation under s.202 Cr.P.C. (mandatory inquiry where accused resides outside the Magistrate’s territorial jurisdiction), and the essential ingredients of criminal defamation under s.499 IPC.

The Court held that:

(i) the statutory presumption attaches to the editor named in the publication but not automatically to other functionaries such as an editorial director unless specific averments establish control over selection of matter;

(ii) where accused reside outside the Magistrate’s jurisdiction, the Magistrate must conduct the inquiry/inspection mandated by s.202(1) before issuing process;

(iii) mere broad, generalized allegations or reliance on another accused’s article are insufficient to sustain summons against multiple persons; and

(iv) where mandatory procedure under s.202 was not followed and no material established prima facie lowering of reputation or intent to defame, issuance of summons and criminal proceedings were to be quashed.

The appeals were allowed and proceedings quashed as to the appellants.

Keywords: Criminal Defamation; Section 202 Cr.P.C.; Press & Registration of Books Act, 1867; Statutory presumption – editor; Editorial Director.

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The matter arose from a private complaint dated 22.08.2014 alleging that multiple news items published in various editions of The Times of India, Bangalore Mirror, Mumbai Mirror and The Economic Times between 27.06.2014 and 20.07.2014 impugned the authenticity of paintings offered for auction by the complainant. The complainant arraigned fourteen accused including the owning company (Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd.), its editorial director (A2), individual named editors/journalists and contributors — under s.200 Cr.P.C. read with ss.499–500 IPC. The trial Magistrate recorded the complainant’s sworn statement, took cognizance and issued summons (registered as CC No.18491 of 2016).

Multiple appellants challenged the summons in the Karnataka High Court; that court quashed the complaint only as to the company (A1) but otherwise dismissed. The appellants then approached the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court was required to examine:

(i) whether the complaint pleaded sufficient, specific allegations to proceed against non-editorial functionaries such as the editorial director;

(ii) whether the statutory presumption in s.7 Press Act automatically extended beyond the named editor;

(iii) whether mandatory s.202 inquiry was complied with where accused resided beyond the Magistrate’s territorial jurisdiction; and

(iv) whether, on the record, prima facie elements of criminal defamation (imputation capable of lowering reputation in the estimation of others and requisite mens rea) were established.

The Court engaged previous precedents on both procedural safeguards in criminal complaints and constitutional protection for journalistic expression.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

On 27.06.2014 an article titled “Fakes at Art Auction Raise Huge Storm” appeared (Times editions) referring to the complainant by name and discussing allegations of counterfeit works at the complainant’s auction. Subsequent articles (27–29 June; 6 July; 20 July 2014) in different city editions and in The Economic Times repeated concerns about authenticity and referenced legal notices and expert opinions.

The complainant contended that certain reports suggested the complainant knowingly offered fake works, referenced past controversies (2010 Souza matter) and published alleged legal notices before the complainant had received them all of which, it was alleged, harmed the complainant’s reputation and business and lowered public estimation. The complainant filed a single private complaint against fourteen persons including the corporate owner (A1), the editorial director (A2), executive editor and multiple authors (A4, A5, A8–A13).

The trial Court recorded the complainant’s statement on 14.11.2014, took cognizance and issued summons on 29.07.2016. Several accused resided in Mumbai/Kolkata (outside the Bengaluru Magistrate’s jurisdiction). The High Court quashed proceedings only against the corporate owner but upheld summons for individual appellants. Appellants challenged this in the Supreme Court, asserting procedural non-compliance (no s.202 inquiry), absence of specific allegations tying non-editors to editorial control, the reporting nature of articles (quoting experts/rebuttals) and absence of evidence of reputational lowering by third parties.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the complaint, as pleaded, contains specific averments sufficient to fasten criminal liability upon an editorial director who is not the named editor under the Press Act?
ii. Whether the Magistrate was obliged under s.202 Cr.P.C. to conduct an inquiry before issuing process against accused residing outside the territorial jurisdiction?
iii. Whether the impugned news articles, read holistically, satisfy the essential ingredients of criminal defamation under s.499 IPC (imputation capable of lowering reputation; mens rea)?
iv. Whether a single consolidated complaint alleging different articles across states/dates can sustain criminal proceedings against multiple persons without individualized prima facie material?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that:

• The editorial director (A2) did not author or appear in the print-line as editor; his role was administrative and not shown to control selection of matter, hence the s.7 presumption does not attach to him.

• The complaint contains only broad, conclusory averments that appellants “orchestrated a smear campaign” but lacks specific allegations of acts/omissions connecting each accused to each article.

• The Magistrate failed to comply with s.202 Cr.P.C.: no inquiry/witness-examination was conducted before issuing summons to persons residing in Mumbai/Kolkata, rendering summons vitiated.

• Several appellants authored pieces that merely reported expert views or engaged in public interest debate on authentication; such reporting, especially where it quotes experts and presents complainant’s response, cannot be equated with intent to defame.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for Respondent submitted that:

• The impugned publications were widely circulated and caused substantial harm to the complainant’s commercial reputation and credibility; the complaint sufficiently outlined defamatory imputations.

• The Magistrate took cognizance correctly after recording the complainant; at the stage of issuance of process, a prima facie case suffices and detailed inquiry into merits is not required.

• The collective publication created a public impression that the complainant dealt in fake works, thereby lowering reputation in the estimation of others and satisfying s.499 ingredients.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS 

i. Section 499 IPC — definition and explanations of defamation (effect on reputation in the estimation of others).
ii. Section 500 IPC — punishment for defamation.
iii. Section 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. — private complaint procedure and mandatory inquiry where accused is outside Magistrate’s jurisdiction (2005 amendment).
iv. Press & Registration of Books Act, 1867 — ss.5 & 7 — requirement to print editor’s name and statutory presumption in proceedings.

I) JUDGEMENT 

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and quashed issuance of summons and the criminal complaint as to the appellants. The Court reasoned that the Press Act creates a rebuttable presumption only in favour of the editor named in the publication; it does not automatically extend the presumption to managerial roles such as editorial director. Citing K.M. Mathew v. K.A. Abraham and Gambhirsinh R. Dekare v. Falgunbhai Chimanbhai Patel, the Court held that non-editorial functionaries can be proceeded against only when the complaint contains specific factual averments establishing control over selection of matter. The complaint here merely alleged that the editorial director “oversaw” publications a broad, non-specific averment insufficient to justify summons.

Regarding s.202 Cr.P.C., the Court reiterated the mandatory obligation to conduct inquiry where accused reside beyond the Magistrate’s territorial jurisdiction (post-2005 amendment), referring to Abhijit Pawar v. Hemant Nimbalkar and Vijay Dhanuka jurisprudence. The Magistrate had not conducted any such inquiry; only the complainant’s statement was recorded. In the absence of examination of witnesses to establish prima facie lowering of reputation or to test mala fides, issuance of process was procedurally flawed.

On merits, the Court noted that several articles merely recorded expert opinions, quoted multiple voices, and in some instances the appellants wrote different articles (different dates/editions) that did not draw conclusions imputing guilt or dishonesty. No material was placed indicating the auction failed or quantifiable damage resulted. Given the passage of time and the unlikely availability of witnesses, remand would be futile; for ends of justice, proceedings were quashed. The Court emphasized balance: Art.19(1)(a) protection for press freedom must be exercised responsibly, but procedural safeguards for those accused of defamation are vital to prevent harassment.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The operative ratio is twofold:

(1) A statutory presumption under the Press Act attaches to the editor named in the publication; other officials (e.g., editorial director) are not presumptively liable unless complaint pleads specific facts demonstrating control over content selection.

(2) Where accused reside outside the Magistrate’s jurisdiction, s.202 mandates an inquiry/investigation prior to issuing process absence of such inquiry vitiates summons. Applying these principles, the Court found the complaint legally insufficient to sustain prosecution of the appellants.

b. OBITER DICTA 

The Court observed (obiter) on the high public impact of media reporting and reiterated normative expectations: journalists and media functionaries must exercise accuracy and fairness; publications must be in public interest and in good faith. The Court acknowledged the media’s power to shape opinion and cautioned that criminal defamation must not become a vehicle for harassment; yet it noted that responsible reporting remains a constitutional duty under Art.19(1)(a).

The Court also noted prior case law emphasising that exceptions under s.499 may be considered even at summoning stage in appropriate cases (citing Aroon Purie and Iveco Magirus decisions referenced in the judgment).

c. GUIDELINES

i. Magistrates must explicitly record and conduct the s.202 inquiry where accused reside outside jurisdiction; mere perusal of the complaint and complainant’s statement is inadequate.
ii. Complaints against multiple persons arising from different publications/dates/editions require individualized averments tying each accused to specific imputations; generalised conspiracy/blanket allegations are insufficient.
iii. Presumption under s.7 Press Act applies to the named editor on the publication’s print line; other functionaries must be pleaded against with factual particularity to displace the absence of statutory presumption.
iv. Where remand would be futile because the complained event (e.g., auction) is concluded and decade has passed, Court may quash proceedings rather than remand for fresh inquiries.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment reinforces procedural safeguards in private criminal defamation prosecutions and protects non-editorial media functionaries from facile invocation of liability absent specific factual pleading. Practically, the decision tightens the threshold for magistrates to issue process where accused are outside territorial jurisdiction and where complaints aggregate multiple articles and persons without tailoring allegations. The Court’s approach balances two competing imperatives: safeguarding freedom of speech and expression (recognising the media’s role and the risk of chilling effects) and protecting reputational interests by ensuring that cognizance is not mechanically taken without prima facie material.

For practitioners, the ruling underscores drafting discipline in complaints (particularize role and actus reus for each accused) and concomitantly, it places an onus on magistrates to conduct meaningful s.202 inquiries. From a jurisprudential perspective, the Court clarifies that statutory presumptions under the Press Act are limited and rebuttable in scope editors named on the print line attract a special statutory position; otherwise factual pleadings must carry the day. The decision will function as an important check against strategic litigation that weaponises criminal defamation to stifle journalistic expression, while not diluting remedies where genuine reputational harm is demonstrably pleaded and supported.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. Aroon Purie v. State of NCT of Delhi, [2022] 18 SCR 311 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1491.

2. Iveco Magirus Brandschutztechnik GMBH v. Nirmal Kishore Bhartiya, [2023] 13 SCR 220 : (2024) 2 SCC 86.

3. Bloomberg Television Production Services India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd., [2024] 3 SCR 994 : 2024 INSC 255.

4. Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Ors. v. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors., (1998) 5 SCC 749.

5. Abhijit Pawar v. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar, (2017) 3 SCC 528.

6. K.M. Mathew v. K.A. Abraham, 2002 (6) SCC 670.

7. Gambhirsinh R. Dekare v. Falgunbhai Chimanbhai Patel, (2013) 3 SCC 697.

b. Important Statutes Referred

1. Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss.499, 500.

2. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss.200, 202 (as amended).

3. Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 — ss.1 (definition of “editor”), 5, 7.