Court emphasizes that mere reproduction of complainant's own words, absent editorial malice, does not constitute defamation; procedural lapses in summoning order also led to quashing of proceedings
In a significant judgment dated September 16, 2026, the Calcutta High Court delivered a decisive verdict in the consolidated matters of Abhishek Kapoor v. Kabir Suman and Bittu Roy Choudhury v. Kabir Suman, quashing a criminal defamation complaint filed against senior media personnel of Republic Bangla. The Court held that faithful reproduction of a complainant's own words without any editorial malice does not fulfill the essential ingredients of defamation under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The case arose from a telephonic conversation on January 27, 2022, between Kabir Suman (complainant) and Bittu Chowdhury, a reporter attached to Republic Bangla. During the call, Mr. Suman reportedly used intemperate language and expletives which were recorded and later circulated. Despite the complainant's own public apology on Facebook for his outburst, criminal proceedings were initiated against the reporter and the senior editor, Mr. Abhishek Kapoor, even though no such recording was ever broadcast by Republic Bangla.
Senior Advocate Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the prosecution was legally untenable as the complaint failed to show any imputation originating from the accused with intent or knowledge to harm the complainant's reputation. The Court relied heavily on the authoritative precedent from the Supreme Court in Jawaharlal Darda & Ors. v. Manoharrao Ganpatrao Kapsikar & Anr. (1998) which clarified that truthful and faithful reporting of the complainant's own words without any independent malicious addition does not amount to defamation.
The Court further highlighted Explanation 4 to Section 499 IPC, underscoring that an imputation must lower the reputation of a person in the estimation of others, not merely in the person's own eyes. In this case, there was no evidence from any third party that the complainant's reputation was adversely affected. Additionally, the Court found the cognizance order to have been passed mechanically without proper judicial discretion and the summoning order flawed for failing to specify individual culpability.
A critical procedural lapse was noted in the failure to conduct a mandatory inquiry under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) before issuing summons, especially since the accused resided outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate. The Court observed that bypassing this legal safeguard was contrary to legislative intent, as emphasized by the Supreme Court in Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016).
Considering the absence of foundational witness testimony, lack of editorial malice, procedural irregularities, and binding precedents, the High Court quashed the entire complaint case (No. 1286 of 2022) including the cognizance and summoning orders. The Court termed the continuation of the proceedings an abuse of the process of law and a travesty of justice.
This ruling reinforces the protection of media personnel from vexatious defamation suits when reporting truthfully and without malice, and reiterates the importance of judicial prudence and procedural compliance in criminal defamation cases.
Bottom Line:
Criminal prosecution for defamation under Section 499 IPC cannot be sustained if the alleged imputation consists of faithful reproduction or reporting of the complainant's own words without editorial malice.
Statutory provision(s):
Indian Penal Code Sections 499, 500; Criminal Procedure Code Sections 202, 482
Abhishek Kapoor v. Kabir Suman, (Calcutta) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2981409
