Delhi High Court Quashes Pinaki Misra Defamation Complaint

• The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal defamation complaint against Senior Advocate Pinaki Misra.
• Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma issued the order on August 25, also setting aside a 2019 magistrate's summoning order.
• The complaint stemmed from allegations that Misra called a lawyer a "crook" and "blackmailer" in a January 2019 interview.
• The High Court exercised its inherent powers under the erstwhile Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 BNSS), finding insufficient foundational material to continue the proceedings.
• The case originated from a professional misconduct complaint filed by Advocate Siddhartha Singh in August 2018.

This ruling reinforces the Delhi High Court's willingness to exercise its inherent powers under the erstwhile Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 BNSS) to quash criminal defamation proceedings where foundational material is insufficient.

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a criminal defamation complaint lodged against Senior Advocate and former Biju Janata Dal (BJD) Member of Parliament, Pinaki Misra. The complaint alleged that Misra referred to a lawyer as a "crook" and "blackmailer." This significant ruling, delivered on August 25 by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in the case of Pinaki Misra v State & Anr, also nullified a summoning order issued by a magistrate's court in 2019. The High Court's decision means that the legal proceedings stemming from these allegations will not continue. The court found that allowing the criminal proceedings to proceed would not serve the interests of justice, particularly given the absence of adequate foundational material to support the claims. Consequently, the impugned summoning order and all subsequent proceedings arising from it have been set aside.

The origins of this defamation case trace back to August 2018, when Advocate Siddhartha Singh filed a complaint with the Bar Council of Delhi. Singh accused Misra of professional misconduct, specifically concerning his appearances before the National Green Tribunal (NGT) on behalf of power distribution companies. This initial dispute garnered media attention, with reports appearing in the Economic Times. Following the media coverage, Misra reportedly gave an interview to Daily Hunt News in January 2019. It was during this interview that he allegedly used the contentious terms "crook" and "blackmailer." In response to these alleged statements, Advocate Singh initiated two separate complaints under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which criminalized defamation in India until its repeal on July 1, 2024, and was replaced by Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Both of these complaints subsequently led to summoning orders being issued against Misra.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma's ruling underscored the importance of sufficient foundational material in criminal proceedings. The court explicitly stated that subjecting the petitioner, Pinaki Misra, to the rigours of a criminal trial without such material would be unjust and would not advance the cause of justice. This determination led the court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which was replaced by Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) on July 1, 2023. Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 BNSS) grants High Courts the authority to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. By invoking this provision, the Delhi High Court effectively halted the criminal defamation case, concluding that the initial complaints lacked the necessary substance to warrant a full trial.

This ruling by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma reinforces the Delhi High Court's willingness to exercise its inherent powers under the erstwhile Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 BNSS) to quash criminal defamation proceedings where foundational material is insufficient. It serves as a crucial precedent, highlighting the judiciary's role in preventing the misuse of legal processes and protecting individuals from unwarranted criminal trials. For legal practitioners, this decision provides valuable guidance, particularly for lawyers defending similar cases or advising clients on the threshold for initiating such complaints. It underscores that mere allegations, without robust foundational evidence, may not withstand scrutiny by the High Court, offering a significant point of reference in the landscape of criminal defamation in India under the erstwhile Section 500 IPC (now Section 356 BNS).

This ruling reinforces the Delhi High Court's willingness to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal defamation proceedings where foundational material is insufficient, providing a precedent for lawyers defending similar cases or advising clients on the threshold for such complaints.

Source: Original reporting via the source.