SRINAGAR: The Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has quashed a criminal defamation complaint against a retired police officer, holding that merely approaching a competent statutory authority with allegations against an individual cannot be made the basis of criminal prosecution, particularly when the law protects accusations made in good faith.
Allowing a petition filed by retired police officer Kamal Saini, Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal set aside the complaint instituted by Pritam Singh Saini under Section 500 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC), along with the January 20, 2018, order of the Special Mobile Magistrate, Passenger Tax, Jammu, which had issued process against him.
The court held that the allegations made by Kamal Saini before the State Information Commission (SIC) in November 2017 attracted the protection envisaged under the Eighth Exception to Section 499 RPC, which excludes from the ambit of defamation an accusation made in good faith before a person or authority having lawful jurisdiction over the subject matter.
It also observed that the allegation that copies of the complaint submitted before the SIC had been circulated among the respondent’s relatives and friends was unsupported by any cogent material. The court further found that the circumstances surrounding the dispute lent credence to the petitioner’s contention that the defamation complaint was a retaliatory move against the proceedings he had earlier initiated against the respondent.
“The criminal process cannot be permitted to become an instrument for penalising a person merely for approaching a competent statutory authority, particularly where the law expressly contemplates protection for accusations made in good faith before an authority having lawful jurisdiction over the subject matter,” Justice Nargal observed.
The judgment was pronounced on October 30, 2026, with the full order uploaded on October 31.
Kamal Saini had approached the High Court under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking quashing of the complaint and the consequential order issuing process against him. His counsel, Advocate Anil Sethi, argued that the proceedings were maliciously instituted as a counterblast to the criminal complaint and civil suit that his client had earlier filed against Pritam Singh Saini over allegedly defamatory publications in a newspaper.
The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the allegations attributed to his client originated in an application submitted before the SIC, a statutory authority, and could not automatically be treated as criminal defamation merely because they were adverse to the respondent.
He maintained that his client had exercised a legal remedy by bringing the alleged misuse of the Right to Information Act, 2005, to the notice of the competent authority. The complaint, according to the petitioner, lacked the essential ingredients of an offence under Section 500 RPC and had been instituted to settle personal scores and exert pressure on him.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported as 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the petitioner’s counsel argued that criminal proceedings instituted with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance could be quashed by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.
Opposing the petition, senior advocate Ajay Sharma, assisted by Advocate Naveed Naik, argued that Pritam Singh Saini, a retired Information Department employee who subsequently started publishing the newspaper Nawa-i-Waqt Azeem, had obtained information through RTI applications concerning alleged irregularities committed by Kamal Saini during his tenure in the Police Department.
He submitted that the information obtained from government departments had been used to publish reports concerning the alleged irregularities, following which Kamal Saini had instituted criminal proceedings and a civil suit claiming damages of Rs 15 crore against his client.
The respondent’s counsel contended that Kamal Saini subsequently submitted an application before the SIC in November 2017, accusing Pritam Singh Saini of blackmailing government departments, misusing the RTI Act to put pressure on departmental heads and withdrawing applications after allegedly obtaining illegal gratification.
The respondent alleged that the petitioner had also distributed copies of the application among his relatives and friends, both personally and through registered post, with the intention of damaging his reputation. The contents were subsequently shared on social networking sites, allegedly lowering his standing in society.
Sharma argued that submitting an application before a statutory authority did not provide blanket immunity against criminal defamation, particularly when the allegations were also allegedly circulated among third parties. He also invoked the constitutional protection of reputation under Article 21 and maintained that freedom of expression could not be exercised at the cost of another person’s reputation.
Examining the legal position, the High Court referred to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra, reported as (2021) 19 SCC 401, and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, observing that inherent jurisdiction could be exercised where allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, failed to disclose an offence or where proceedings were manifestly attended with mala fides and instituted for an ulterior purpose.
The court noted that the Eighth Exception to Section 499 RPC specifically provides that an accusation preferred in good faith against a person to an authority having lawful jurisdiction over the subject matter does not constitute defamation.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Kishore Balkrishna Nand v. State of Maharashtra, reported as 2023 INSC 675, the court reiterated that an accusation made in good faith before an authority legally competent to deal with the matter falls within the protection of the statutory exception.
“The law does not equate every adverse allegation with a defamatory offence; rather, the accusation must be examined in the light of the statutory ingredients and the exceptions expressly recognised by the legislature,” the judgment stated.
The court also considered the respondent’s reliance on the Madras High Court judgment in Dr J. Sudarshan v. R. Sankaran, reported as 1992 Cri LJ 2427, but held that the decision was distinguishable on the nature of the allegations, the circumstances in which they were made and the applicability of the Eighth Exception.
It clarified that the petitioner could not claim automatic immunity merely because the allegations had been addressed to a public authority. However, the nature and purpose of the communication, the authority approached and the circumstances in which the accusation was made had to be examined to determine whether the statutory protection applied.
The High Court also distinguished the Supreme Court’s judgment in Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, reported as (2016) 7 SCC 221, relied upon by the respondent. It observed that the judgment primarily dealt with the constitutional validity of criminal defamation provisions and the recognition of reputation as a facet of Article 21, rather than the applicability of the Eighth Exception to an accusation made before a competent statutory authority.
Turning to the background of the dispute, the court noted that Kamal Saini had instituted a criminal complaint against Pritam Singh Saini on March 27, 2017, under Sections 499, 500, 501 and 502 RPC, alleging that the latter had carried out a campaign of defamation through his newspaper. He had simultaneously filed a civil suit seeking damages of Rs 15 crore before the Additional District Judge, Jammu.
After recording the statements of the complainant and a witness, the Judicial Magistrate First Class/City Judge, Jammu, had taken cognisance and issued process against Pritam Singh Saini on the same date.
The respondent subsequently challenged that order before the High Court through CRMC No. 758/2017. However, the petition was dismissed on December 30, 2023, upholding the Magistrate’s order.
Meanwhile, Pritam Singh Saini had instituted the complaint against Kamal Saini on January 18, 2018, alleging defamation through the application submitted before the SIC. The Special Mobile Magistrate took cognisance and issued process against him on January 20, 2018, prompting the present petition.
The High Court observed that the sequence of events had to be considered against the backdrop of the existing litigation and acrimony between the parties. It clarified that the mere existence of earlier proceedings did not automatically establish mala fides, but the surrounding circumstances, coupled with the absence of material supporting the alleged circulation of the SIC application, lent weight to the petitioner’s claim that the subsequent complaint was retaliatory.
“The counterblast nature of a complaint, though not by itself conclusive, assumes considerable significance when supported by the surrounding circumstances and the absence of a legally sustainable foundation for the prosecution,” the court observed.
Finding that the complaint did not disclose a sustainable basis for criminal prosecution and that its continuation would amount to an abuse of the process of law, the High Court allowed the petition.
Accordingly, it quashed the criminal complaint titled Pritam Singh Saini v. Kamal Saini, instituted under Section 500 RPC, as well as the January 20, 2018, order of the Special Mobile Magistrate, Passenger Tax, Jammu, issuing process against Kamal Saini.
