Journalist Swati Chaturvedi's petition

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CRL. MISC. (MAIN) OF 2018
IN THE MATTER OF: -
SWATI CHATURVEDI …. PETITIONER
VERSUS
TAJINDER PAL SINGH BAGGA …. RESPONDENT
INDEX
S.
No.
PARTICULARS Page No.
1. Notice of Motion
2. Court Fee
3. Memo of Parties
4. Synopsis & List of Dates
5. Criminal Misc along with Affidavit
6. Annexure P-1: A copy of the tweet by the
respondent on assault of Mr.Prashant Bhushan
dated 12.10.2011
7. Annexure P-2: A copy of chargesheet filed in
FIR No. 182/2011 dated 2011
8. Annexure P-3: A copy of news reports and
tweets dated 2011
9.1. Annexure P-4: A copy of tweets accusing
respondent for sexual harassment by Dr Jwala
Gurunath dated nil
10. Annexure P-5: A copy of the complaint made
by Dr. Jwala Gurunath dated 01.01.2016 and
the email written by Dr. Jwala Gurunath to the
petitioner dated xx
11. Annexure P-6: A copy of the interview of
respondent dated nil
12. Annexure P-7: A copy of the said judgment
dated 14.07.2016 of the Karnataka High Court
13. Annexure P-8: A copy of the announcement

made by Delhi BJP on 14.03.2017
14. Annexure P-9: A copy of the said tweet of the
petitioner dated 15.03.2017
15. Annexure P-10: A copy of the complaint lodged
with the Commissioner of Police, New Delhi
against the petitioner dated 16.03.2017
16. Annexure P-11: A copy of news reports and
tweets dated nil
17. Annexure P-12: A copy of the said criminal
complaint no. 44490/2017 before the
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Patiala House Courts, New Delhi filed by the
respondent dated 18.03.2017
18. Annexure P-13: A copy of the order dated
17.05.2018 passed by Ld. Metropolitan
Magistrate
19. Annexure P-14: A copy of article on the Book
titled ‘I am a troll: Inside the secret world of the
BJP’s digital army’ dated 22.12.2016
20. Application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C for
stay of proceeding before the trial court during
the pendency of the petition
21. Application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C for
exemption from filing the certified copies of the
annexures
22. Application for permission to file dim copy/
short font/ illegible annexures
23. Vakalatnama on behalf of the Petitioner.
Petitioner:
Through:
PRANAV SACHDEVA
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER
NEW DELHI 301, NEW LAWYERS CHAMBER
DATED: 06.07.2017 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ENROLLMENT NO.: D/1806/2009
MOBILE NO: +91-9910523811

IN THE MATTER OF: -
VERSUS
NOTICE OF MOTION
Sir,
Please find enclosed herewith a complete set of Writ Petition which
is being filed by the petitioner and the same is likely to be list on
_____________ or soon thereafter.
Copy to:
1. Tajinder Pal Singh Bagga
S/o Shri Preet Pal Singh
Spokesperson, Delhi BJP
14, Pandit Pant Marg
New Delhi-110001
Petitioner
Through:
PRANAV SACHDEVA
MOBILE NO: +91-9910523811

IN THE MATTER OF: -
VERSUS
URGENT APPLICATION
To,
The Registrar,
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi,
New Delhi
Sir,
Kindly treat the accompanying petition as urgent. The ground of
urgency is that the matter is listed for hearing on12.07.2018 as the
Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts has summoned
the petitioner for offences punishable under Section 499, 500 and
501 IPC. Kindly list this matter before the Hon’ble Court urgently.
Petitioner
Through:
PRANAV SACHDEVA
MOBILE NO: +91-9910523811

IN THE MATTER OF:-
SWATI CHATURVEDI ….PETITIONER
VERSUS
TAJINDER PAL SINGH BAGGA …RESPONDENT
MEMO OF PARTIES
1. Swati Chaturvedi
W/o Shri Manasije Mishra
R/o XXXX …PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. Tajinder Pal Singh Bagga
S/o Shri Preet Pal Singh
Spokesperson, Delhi BJP
14, Pandit Pant Marg
New Delhi-110001 …RESPONDENT
Petitioner
Through:
PRANAV SACHDEVA
MOBILE NO: +91-9910523811

SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES
That the present petition is being filed under section 482 of
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeking quashing of the complaint
(being Complaint Case No. 44490 of 2017) filed by the Respondent
herein under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for initiating the proceedings
under Section 499, 500 and 501 of IPC against the Petitioner
herein. This petition also seeks quashing of the summoning order
dated 17.05.2018 passed by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate-6,
Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 44490 of
2017 titled as “Tajinder Pal Singh Bagga vs. Swati Chaturvedi”.
Respondent with an ulterior motive to harass the petitioner has
filed a defamation case against her, as she wrote an investigative
book titled ‘I am a troll: Inside the secret world of the BJP’s digital
army’ targeting respondent and his political party. In her book she
uncovers the systemic abuse and attacks made by the BJP
affiliated persons on the social networking websites. The Petitioner
has illustrated respondent in the book as a BJP’s Internet warrior
who graduated from online abuse to actual violence. Her book has
been widely acclaimed and praised internationally and nationally.
The petitioner has been consistently exposing the wrong doings of
the government and the ruling party in her books and her writings
over the last 20 years. However, till date she has not faced any
defamation or other criminal charges throughout her career as an
investigative journalist.
Petitioner through her Twitter handle i.e. @bainjal was commenting
on the conduct of the ruling party in appointment of a
spokesperson of low credentials as that of the respondent while
tweeting that “Now the man who beat up @pbhushan1 was arrested
in a sexual harassment case speaks for @BJP4India. Good job”
dated 15.03.2017. Petitioner had only remarked on the conduct of
the ruling party herein BJP in appointment of a person as their
spokesman who had criminally assaulted an advocate and who had
been involved in a sexual harassment case. The tweet was targeted
at the BJP and not respondent per se. The tweet was also based on
nothing but truth and in good faith as this petition shows. The

tweet was a step towards accountability of the functioning of the
ruling party BJP and to alert the public about its conduct. The
tweet was thus in public interest.
Petitioner’s tweet is nothing but truth and it had two parts: a)
referring to Mr. Prashant Bhushan’s assault case; and b) referring
to involvement in a sexual harassment case. As far as the first part
is concerned, i.e. assault on Mr. Bhushan, the respondent had
himself claimed credit for the same using his twitter handle and
has also been arrested and charge-sheeted by the Delhi Police. The
respondent is out on bail and the trial is still going on. For the
respondent to expect that no one would comment on his case till
the trial is completed and he is convicted, would mean that public
would have to wait for another 7-10 years before they can accuse
the respondent of the crime. As far as the second part of the
petitioner’s tweet is concerned, the same was a reference to the
accusation of sexual harassment made by Dr Jwala Gurunath in
January 2016. It is pertinent to mention here that respondent in
one of his print interview has even tried to defend himself of sexual
harassment case (Annexure P6). An FIR was also lodged against
the respondent for sexual harassment by Dr. Jwala Gurunath. Her
accusations have been reported in media and have been
commented on Twitter by various prominent persons, but the
respondent has chosen not file any defamation complaint against
them. Further, he has also not filed any defamation complaint
against Dr. Gurunath.
Petitioner made a legitimate comment on public conduct of a
political party and their spokesperson. Petitioner’s tweet was
manifestly and ex-facie based on truth and made in public interest.
Thus, the complaint of the respondent is clearly bad in law and is
only filed to harass the petitioner. There is no right to reputation
against truth. Truth triumphs any claim for damaged reputation.
Truth and public interest are clear statutorily recognized defenses
to defamation under the IPC. Clear exception is provided in Section
499 IPC which protects petitioner against the charges of
defamation. Thus, ex-facie the offence of defamation is not made
out since the petitioner’s tweet is clearly covered by above clear

exceptions in built in the very definition of defamation as provided
in Section 499 IPC.
It is also pertinent to mention here that respondent has not filed
defamation case against any other person who have expressed
similar opinions. The respondent specifically targeted the
petitioner, using her tweet as an excuse, in order to harass her
using the legal process by filing a mala fide complaint.
Hence this petition.
Date Particulars
12.10.2011 The respondent along with two others trespassed
and assaulted advocate Prashant Bhushan in his
Supreme Court chamber. After the attack,
Bhushan was taken to Ram Manohar Lohia
hospital where doctors said that he had received
injuries on his head and leg.
Respondent had tweeted few hours before the
assault that "God give us power to complete our
mission."
After the assault, the respondent claimed credit for
the assault exulting, “He try to break my nation, I
try to break his head. Hisab chukta. Congrats to all.
Operation Prashant Bhushan successful." In
another tweet he posted: "We hit Prashant Bhushan
hard in his chamber in Supreme Court. If you will
try to break my nation, I will break your heads.”
An FIR (182/2011) was registered at Tilak Marg
Police Station on the same date and one of the
accused Inder Verma was arrested.
13.10.2011 The respondent was arrested by the Delhi Police
along with another accused Vishnu Gupta for the
assault of Mr. Prashant Bhushan.
2011 Chargesheet was filed by the Delhi Police against
the three accused including the respondent under
Sections 452, 323, 120(B) and 34 of the IPC for the

brutal assault on Mr. Prashant Bhushan.
01.01.2016 A complaint was lodge by one Dr. Jawala
Gurunath with the Karnataka Police against the
respondent for sexual harassment and insult to
her caste identity. She accused the respondent of
making an indecent proposal by calling her nearly
33 times.
Dr. Jwala Gurunath, subsequently, on Twitter
(using her handle @DrJwalaG) repeatedly accused
the respondent of sexual harassment, by stating
‘calling 33 times in a night for a stay with women
who lives alone’, ‘wanting to stay overnight’,
‘atrocity’, ‘absconding from the police’, ‘molester’,
‘wanted criminal’, ‘road side goon’, ‘shameless
moron’ etc. She has addressed these tweets to
prominent persons including the Prime minster,
Home ministry, Delhi Police, Bangalore police and
to the public at large. Similar comments made on
twitter by other persons.
It is pertinent to mention here that respondent has
opted not to lodge any defamation case against Dr.
Jwala Gurunath.
08.01.2016 An FIR 3/2016 was registered by the Karnataka
Police at Kalburgi, Karnataka on the complaint of
Dr. Jwala Gurunath against the respondent. The
case was subsequently transferred to Bangaluru.
Crime No. 32/2016 was registered by Bangaluru
Police under Section 3 of SC&ST Prevention of
Atrocities Act, 1989, and Section 66A of the
Information Technology Act 2000. Though the
complainant had alleged harassment by the
respondent, the FIR did not mention the sections
in IPC relating to sexual harassment.
14.07.2016 Ld. Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court in a
petition filed by the respondent herein under
Section 482 CrPC quashed proceedings in Crime

No. 32/16 of Kumaraswamy Layout police station,
Bengaluru on the ground that the complainant
(Dr. Jawala Gurunath) had not disclosed in her
complaint that the respondent was not a member
of SC/ST and that he had intentionally insulted
her with an intent to humiliate in public view. The
learned single judge also observed that the Hon’ble
Supreme Court had already struck down Section
66A of the IT Act and therefore, the said offence
was not attracted.
14.03.2017 The respondent was appointed by the BJP as their
spokesperson for the Delhi State unit of the party.
15.03.2017 The petitioner through her Twitter handle @bainjal
tweeted: “Now the man who beat up @pbhushan1
was arrested in a sexual harassment case speaks
for @BJP4India. Good job”. The petitioner was
commenting on the conduct of the ruling party in
appointing a spokesperson of the credentials of the
respondent.
18.03.2017 The respondent filed a criminal complaint no.
44490/2017 before the Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts,
New Delhi under Section 200 of the CrPC against
the petitioner for having allegedly committed
offences under section 499, 500 and 501 of the
IPC. In the said complaint the respondent stated
that the case of assault of Mr. Prashant Bhushan
is sub-judice and also falsely stated that he had
never been accused of sexual harassment, and
therefore the tweet of the petitioner herein is
defamatory.
17.05.2018 Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts
was pleased to summon the petitioner for offences
punishable under Section 499, 500 and 501 IPC to
appear before her on 12.07.2018.
.07.2018 Hence the instant petition under Section 482 CrPC

seeking quashing of the complaint and the
summoning order.
IN THE MATTER OF: -
SWATI CHATURVEDI ….PETITIONERS
VERSUS
TAJINDER PAL SINGH BAGGA …RESPONDENTS
PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CODE, 1973 SEEKING QUASHING OF CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
CASE NO. 44490 OF 2017 FILED UNDER SECTION 200 OF
CR.P.C. FOR INITIATING THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION
499, 500 AND 501 OF IPC AS WELL AS SUMMONING ORDER
DATED 17.05.2018 ISSUED BY LD. METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE-6, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI IN THE
AFOREMENTIONED COMPLAINT CASE TITLE AS TAJINDER
PAL SINGH BAGGA VS. SWATI CHATURVEDI
The Petitioners above-named most respectfully submit as under: -
1. That the present petition is being filed under section 482 of
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeking quashing of the
complaint (being Complaint Case No. 44490 of 2017) filed by
the Respondent herein under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for
initiating the proceedings under Section 499, 500 and 501 of
IPC against the Petitioner herein. This petition also seeks
quashing of the summoning order dated 17.05.2018 passed by
the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate-6, Patiala House Courts, New
Delhi in Complaint Case No. 44490 of 2017 titled as “Tajinder
Pal Singh Bagga vs. Swati Chaturvedi”.
The petitioner

2. The petitioner is a journalist of high repute, standing and
eminence. She has worked with various newspapers and
channels like The Statesman, The Indian Express, Hindustan
Times, The Tribune, NDTV.com, TheWire.in etc. She is the
author of several books. Her investigative stories have
exposed the wrong acts of various governments and political
parties over the last 20 years. She has not faced any
defamation or other charges throughout her career as an
investigative journalist.
3. Petitioner’s investigative book ‘I am a troll: Inside the secret
world of the BJP’s digital army’ reveals the systemic abuse
and attack by BJP affiliated persons on the Internet. The
respondent has been named as an example in the book as a
BJP’s Internet warrior who graduated from online abuse to
actual violence. Her book has been widely acclaimed and
praised internationally and nationally. She has also been
writing investigative stories and editorial comments exposing
the wrongdoings of the current government and the party in
power.
4. Petitioner is the accused in the complaint dated 18.03.2017
filed by the respondent herein under Section 200 CrPC
alleging that he has been defamed by the petitioner. Petitioner
has been summoned by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate on
the basis of the said complaint vide order dated 17.05.2018.
The respondent
5. The respondent is an accused in the brutal attack on lawyer
Mr. Prashant Bhushan, for which he had himself claimed

responsibility. He had been arrested and charge-sheeted by
the Delhi Police, and is currently out on bail.
6. The respondent in 2010 had attacked the car of one Kashmiri
leader in Delhi, in 2011 he had disrupted Ms. Arundhati
Roy’s book launch in Delhi and in 2012 he had heckled a
Kashmiri Hurriyat leader in Delhi. Respondent has been
extremely active on micro-blogging website Twitter and other
social media targeting critics of the BJP. Respondent has
been appointed BJP spokesperson for Delhi unit.
7. The respondent had been accused of sexual harassment by
Dr. Jwala Gurunath in a police complaint. She alleged that
the respondent had made an indecent proposal by calling her
25 times to stay over her place. A FIR was registered by the
Karnataka police. However, no offence relating to sexual
harassment was invoked by the police in the FIR with the
result that Ld. Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court
quashed the FIR.
Brief Facts
8. The respondent along with two others on 12.10.2011 had
trespassed and assaulted advocate Prashant Bhushan in
his Supreme Court chamber. After the attack, Bhushan
was taken to Ram Manohar Lohia hospital where doctors
said that he had received minor injuries on his head and
leg. Hours before the assault the respondent had tweeted.
"God give us power to complete our mission." After the
assault, the respondent claimed credit for the assault
exulting, “He try to break my nation, I try to break his head.
Hisab chukta. Congrats to all. Operation Prashant Bhushan

successful." In another tweet he posted: "We hit Prashant
Bhushan hard in his chamber in Supreme Court. If you will
try to break my nation, I will break your heads.” A copy of
the tweet by the respondent on assault of Mr.Prashant
Bhushan dated 12.10.2011 is annexed and marked as
Annexure P-1 (pages _____).
9. An FIR (182/2011) was registered at Tilak Marg Police
Station on the same date, i.e. 12.10.2011 and one of the
accused Inder Verma was arrested. On the next date, the
respondent was arrested by the Delhi Police along with
another accused Vishnu Gupta for the assault of Mr.
Prashant Bhushan. A chargesheet was later filed by the
Delhi Police against the three accused including the
respondent under Sections 452, 323, 120(B) and 34 of the
IPC for the brutal assault on Mr. Prashant Bhushan. A
copy of chargesheet filed in FIR No. 182/2011 dated 2011
is annexed and marked as Annexure P-2 (pages _____).
10. That this incident was tweeted and retweeted on several
accounts by various people. Even all the media houses in
the country covered this episode. However, the respondent
has chosen not to take any defamation action against any
one of these people. Where as in the criminal defamation
complaint against the petitioner with the motive to harass
her, respondent pleads that no one would comment on his
case till the trial is completed and he is convicted. A copy
of news reports and tweets dated 2011 is annexed and
marked as Annexure P-3 (Colly) (pages _____).

11. Between 02.01.2016 and 08.06.2017, Dr Jwala Gurunath
on twitter (@DrJwalaG) repeatedly accused the respondent
of sexual harassment for calling her 33 times in a night for
wanting to stay overnight. She has addressed these tweets
to prominent persons including the Prime minster, Home
ministry, Delhi Police, Bangalore police and to the public
at large. Similar comments made on twitter by other
persons. A copy of tweets accusing respondent for sexual
harassment by Dr Jwala Gurunath dated nil is annexed
and marked as Annexure P- 4 (Colly) (pages _____).
12. A police complaint was lodged by Dr. Jawala Gurunath on
01.01.2016 with the Karnataka Police against the
respondent for sexual harassment and insult to her caste
identity. In her letter to the police, Dr Gurunath has
accused the respondent of making an indecent proposal by
calling her nearly 25 times. On 08.01.2016, an FIR
3/2016 was registered by the Karnataka Police at Kalburgi,
Karnataka on the complaint of Dr. Jwala Gurunath against
the respondent. The case was subsequently transferred to
Bangaluru. Crime No. 32/2016 was registered by
Bangaluru Police under Section 3 of SC&ST Prevention of
Atrocities Act, 1989, and Section 66A of the Information
Technology Act 2000. Though the complainant had alleged
harassment by the respondent, the FIR did not mention
the sections in IPC relating to sexual harassment.
13. It is pertinent to mention here that Dr. Jwala Gurunath
even wrote to the petitioner via email informing about the
sexual harassment incident. So, it is safe to say that

petitioner only tweeted what is already in the public
domain. A copy of the complaint made by Dr. Jwala
Gurunath dated 01.01.2016 and the email written by Dr.
Jwala Gurunath to the petitioner dated xx is annexed and
marked as Annexure P-5 (pages _____).
14. Respondent even tried to defend himself in one the print
interview. Hence for the respondent to state in the present
complaint that he has never been accused of sexual
harassment case is in toto false and fabricated. A copy of
the interview of respondent dated nil is annexed and
15. Ld. Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court in a petition
filed by the respondent herein under Section 482 CrPC,
vide judgment dated 14.07.2016, quashed proceedings in
Crime No. 32/16 of Kumaraswamy Layout police station,
Bengaluru on the ground that the complainant (Dr. Jawala
Gurunath) had not disclosed in her complaint that the
respondent was not a member of SC/ST and that he had
intentionally insulted her with an intent to humiliate in
public view. The learned single judge also observed that
the Hon’ble Supreme Court had already struck down
Section 66A of the IT Act and therefore, the said offence
was not attracted. A copy of the said judgment dated
14.07.2016 of the Karnataka High Court is annexed as and
16. On 14.03.2017, the respondent was appointed by the BJP
as their spokesperson for the Delhi State unit of the party.

A copy of the announcement made by Delhi BJP on
14.03.2017 is annexed and marked as Annexure P-8
(pages _____).
17. On 15.03.2017, the petitioner through her Twitter handle
i.e. @bainjal was commenting on the code of conduct of the
ruling party in appointment of a spokesperson of low
credentials as that of the respondent while tweeting that
“Now the man who beat up @pbhushan1 was arrested in a
sexual harassment case speaks for @BJP4India. Good job”
dated 15.03.2017. Petitioner had only remarked on the
code of conduct of the ruling party herein BJP in
appointment of a person as their spokesman who had
criminally assaulted an advocate and who had been
involved in a sexual harassment case. The tweet was
targeted at the BJP and not respondent per se. The tweet
was also based on nothing but truth and in good faith as
this petition shows. The tweet was a step towards
accountability of the functioning of the ruling party BJP
and to alert the public about its code of conduct. The tweet
was thus in public interest. A copy of the said tweet of the
petitioner dated 15.03.2017 is annexed and marked as
Annexure P-9 (pages _____).
18. That the respondent lodged a complaint with the
Commissioner of Police, New Delhi against the petitioner
for defamation under section 499, 500 and 501 of the IPC
for tweeting through her twitter handle. The relevant
paragraph is reproduced herein below:

“I wish to inform you that the contents of aforesaid
tweet are out rightly false, frivolous and concoted
as primarily I am not involved in beating up of
advocate Prashant Bhushan, and moreover the
said case being sub judice can not be attributed to
me. Secondly, I was never ever arrested or
accused of any case pertaining to sexual
harassment or similar offence. The said tweet is
intentional attempt to defame me and cause harm
to my name and reputation, on personal or on
behest of someone else.”
A copy of the complaint lodged with the Commissioner of
Police, New Delhi against the petitioner dated 16.03.2017
is annexed and marked as Annexure P-10 (pages _____).
19. Since this matter came in public domain, numerous
publically influential persons have commented on it,
including on the character of the respondent. The
respondent also chose not to file any complaint against
them. The respondent specifically targeted the petitioner,
using her tweet as an excuse, in order to harass her using
the legal process by filing a mala fide complaint. This has
been clearly done to further his political career within the
BJP since he knows that his party has been adversely
commented upon by the petitioner in her numerous
articles. Thus it can be inferred that only the petitioner
has been specifically targeted to silence her voice. It is also
to be noted that the petitioner has never been accused of
defamation in her career spanning over 20 years. A copy of
news reports and tweets dated nil is annexed and marked
as Annexure P- 11 (Colly) (pages _____).
20. The respondent on 18.03.2017 filed a criminal complaint
no. 44490/2017 before the Additional Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi under Section
22 of the CrPC against the petitioner for having allegedly
committed offences under section 499, 500 and 501 of the
IPC. In the said complaint the respondent stated that the
case of assault of Mr. Prashant Bhushan is sub-judice and
also falsely stated that he had never been accused of
sexual harassment, and therefore the tweet of the
petitioner herein is defamatory. A copy of the said criminal
complaint no. 44490/2017 before the Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi
filed by the respondent dated 18.03.2017 is annexed and
21. Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, vide
order dated 17.05.2018, was pleased to summon the
petitioner for offences punishable under Section 499, 500
and 501 IPC to appear before her on 12.07.2018. The
relevant paragraph is reproduced herein below:
“… The Complainant is aggrieved that y the
aforesaid false frivolous and concocted tweet, the
accused has injured the reputation of the
complainant who himself at the time had a
following more than two lacs users. It is averred
that the allegations are not well founded as the
incident pertaining to Sh. Prashant Bhushan is
sub judice and the complainant was never
accused of sexual harassment.”
A copy of the order dated 17.05.2018 passed by Ld.
Metropolitan Magistrate is annexed and marked as
Annexure P-13(pages _____).
22. That the Petitioner has written an investigative book titled
‘I am a troll: Inside the secret world of the BJP’s digital

army’ which uncovers the systemic abuse and attack made
by the BJP affiliated persons on the social networking
websites. The Petitioner has illustrated respondent in the
book as a BJP’s Internet warrior who graduated from
online abuse to actual violence. Her book has been widely
acclaimed and praised internationally and nationally. A
copy of article on the Book titled ‘I am a troll: Inside the
secret world of the BJP’s digital army’ dated 22.12.2016 is
annexed and marked as Annexure P-14(pages _____).
The tweet
23. Twitter is a micro-blogging website in which millions of
people post their views/comments, share
news/information etc. Twitter is part of social media with
multiple interactions daily. At the time of the petitioner’s
tweet for which the respondent has filed the complaint, the
maximum length of a tweet permitted was 140 characters
or less, a length which is hardly enough to form one full
sentence.
24. The petitioner has a popular twitter handle namely
‘@bainjal’ and has been commenting on daily happenings
for several years now. She currently has about 1,12,000
followers and has tweeted about 58000 times over several
years. This pattern is consistent with all popular twitter
handles belonging to journalists.
25. The petitioner, through one of her tweets posted on
15.03.2017, had commented on the code of conduct and
the state of the ruling party that they appoint a person as
their spokesman who has criminally assaulted a senior

lawyer and who has been involved in a sexual harassment
case. The tweet was targeted at the BJP and not the
respondent per se. The tweet was also based on nothing
but truth and in good faith as this petition shows. The
tweet was a step towards accountability of the functioning
of the ruling party BJP and to alert the public about its
conduct. The tweet was thus in public interest.
26. The tweet had two parts: a) referring to Mr. Prashant
Bhushan’s case and b) referring to involvement in a sexual
harassment case. As far as the first part is concerned, i.e.
assault on Mr. Bhushan, the same is reported extensively
by a large section of the media, both on the date of assault
as well as afterwards. The respondent had himself claimed
credit for the same using his twitter handle. The
respondent was arrested and charge-sheeted by the Delhi
Police. The respondent is out on bail and the trial is still
going on. For the respondent to expect that no one would
comment on his case till the trial is completed and he is
convicted, would mean that public would have to wait for
another 7-10 years before they can accuse the respondent
of the crime.
27. As far as the second part of the petitioner’s tweet is
concerned, the same was a reference to the accusation of
sexual harassment made by Dr. Jwala Gurunath in
January 2016. Dr. Gurunath has been tweeting and
repeatedly accusing the respondent of sexual harassment
and commenting extensively about it on twitter. An FIR
was also lodged against the respondent for sexual

harassment by Dr. Jwala Gurunath. Her accusations have
been reported in media and have been commented on
Twitter by various prominent persons, but the respondent
has chosen not file any complaint against them. He has
also not filed any defamation complaint against Dr
Gurunath.
28. The fact of the matter is that the respondent has been
repeatedly accused of sexual harassment, an FIR has been
lodged against him and by his own public admission, he
has been investigated and also summoned by the police.
For the respondent to falsely state on oath that he has
never been accused of sexual harassment shows the extent
to which the respondent can go in order to harass the
petitioner. The respondent might not have been arrested in
the sexual harassment matter (even though he had been
arrested in Prashant Bhushan assault case) and he might
also have got the FIR quashed on technical grounds, but
still the respondent cannot claim that the petitioner’s tweet
was an outright lie for which she should be prosecuted for
defamation.
Mala fide complaint
29. The respondent being the spokesperson of the BJP has
targeted the petitioner by filing the mala fide complaint
since the petitioner who is an investigative journalist has
been consistently exposing the wrong doings of the
government and the ruling party in her book and her
writings. She has been vocally critical of the BJP and its
government. The fact that a man of the reputation of the

respondent was appointed its spokesperson, speaks
volumes about the party. The respondent and his party
clearly have an axe to grind against the petitioner.
30. Thus, there is a clear reason why the respondent has
chosen to target specifically the petitioner and not file any
complaint or case against numerous others who have
commented on his appointment as spokesperson of the
BJP. The fact that the respondent is the person who
attacked Mr. Prashant Bhushan is confirmed by various
news reports, the charge-sheet filed by Delhi Police and
respondent’s own candid admissions. Respondent has not
filed any defamation complaint against any person for
naming him as the person who assaulted Mr. Bhushan.
31. The respondent has not filed any defamation complaint
Dr. Jwala Gurunath, a member of BJP for publically
naming the respondent as the person who harassed her by
calling her 25 times and asking her to allow him to spend
the night with her. Dr. Gurunath not only lodged an FIR
against the respondent, but also publically tweeted about
it numerous times and also wrote about it to several
prominent persons including the petitioner herein. Since
this matter came in public domain, numerous publically
influential persons have commented on it, including on the
character of the respondent. The respondent chose not to
file any complaint against them.
32. The respondent specifically targeted the petitioner, using
her tweet as an excuse, in order to harass her using the
legal process by filing a mala fide complaint. This has been

clearly done to further his political career within the BJP
since he knows that his party has been adversely
commented upon by the petitioner in her numerous
articles.
33. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (1992) Supp 1 SCC 335 dealt
extensively with the power of the High Courts under Article
482 CrPC specifically with reference to petitions seeking
quashing of criminal complaints. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court specifically stated that the High Courts have the
power to quash complaint which is mala fide and laid
down:
“In the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article
226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, the following categories of cases
are given by way of illustration wherein such power
could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process
of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice,
though it may not be possible to lay down any precise,
clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible
guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list
for myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be
exercised:
(a) where the allegations made in the First Information
Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their
face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima
facie constitute any offence or make out a case against
the accused;
(b) where the allegations in the First Information Report
and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do
not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the
Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the
purview of Section 155(2)of the Code;
(c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR
or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the

same do not disclose the commission of any offence and
make out a case against the accused;
(d) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated
under Section 155(2) of the Code;
(e) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are
so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of
which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion
that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused;
(f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of
the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under
which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the
institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or
where there is a specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party;
(g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking
vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him
due to private and personal grudge.”
Law of defamation
34. There is no right to reputation against truth. Truth
triumphs any claim for damaged reputation. Truth and
public interest are clear statutorily recognized defenses to
defamation under the IPC.
35. The respondent is a public personality and BJP is the
dominant national political party. The information shared
in the article relates to public conduct of a public person
and a public entity. When the petitioner came to know
about the appointment of the respondent as BJP’s
spokesperson, she made a legitimate comment on public
conduct of a political party and their spokesperson.

Petitioner’s tweet was manifestly and ex-facie based on
truth and made in public interest. Thus, the complaint of
the respondent is clearly bad in law and is only filed to
harass the petitioner.
36. Clear exceptions are provided in Section 499 IPC which
protects petitioner. The relevant part is reproduced herein
below:
“First Exception. —Imputation of truth which public good
requires to be made or published.—It is not defamation to
impute anything which is true concerning any person, if it
be for the public good that the imputation should be made
or published. Whether or not it is for the public good is a
question of fact.
Second Exception. —Public conduct of public servants.—It
is not defamation to express in a good faith any opinion
whatever respecting the conduct of a public servant in the
discharge of his public functions, or respecting his
character, so far as his character appears in that
conduct, and no further.
Third Exception. —Conduct of any person touching any
public question.—It is not defamation to express in good
faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of any
person touching any public question, and respecting his
character, so far as his character appears in that
conduct, and no further.
…
Ninth Exception- Imputation made in good faith by person
for protection of his or other's interests- It is not
defamation to make an imputation on the character of
another provided that the imputation be made in good
faith for the protection of the interests of the person
making it, or of any other person, or for the public good.
Tenth Exception- Caution intended for good of person to
whom conveyed or for public good- it is not defamation to
convey a caution, in good faith, to one person against
another, provided that such caution be intended for the
good of the person to whom it is conveyed, or of some
person in whom that person is interested, or for the public
good.”
Thus, ex-facie the offence of defamation is not made out
since the petitioner’s tweet is clearly covered by above clear

exceptions in built in the very definition of defamation as
provided in Section 499 IPC.
37. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in R. Rajagopal vs. State of
Tamil Nadu, (1994) 6 SCC 632 had endorsed Justice
Brennan’s caution that:
“A rule compelling the critic of official conduct to
guarantee the truth of all his factual assertions — and
to do so on pain of libel judgments virtually unlimited
in amount—leads to … “self-censorship”. Allowance of
the defense of truth, with the burden of proving it on
the defendant, does not mean that only false speech
will be deterred. Even courts accepting this defense as
an adequate safeguard have recognized the difficulties
of adducing legal proofs that the alleged libel was true
in all its factual particulars. … Under such a rule,
would-be critics of official conduct may be deterred
from voicing their criticism, even though it is believed
to be true and even though it is in fact true, because of
doubt whether it can be proved in court or fear of the
expense of having to do so. They tend to make only
statements which ‘steer far wider of the unlawful
zone’…. The rule thus dampens the vigor and limits
the variety of public debate. It is inconsistent with the
First and Fourteenth Amendments. The constitutional
guarantees require, we think, a federal rule that
prohibits a public official from recovering damages for
a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct
unless he proves that the statement was made with
‘actual malice’ — that is, with knowledge that it was
false or with reckless disregard of whether it was
false or not.”
If a libel action is forbidden, even more so should criminal
action be forbidden lest it stifle democratic discourse.
Criminal Courts should therefore adjudge defamation
complaints in the spirit of Supreme Court’s philosophical
mandate.
38. A three judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court had
quashed a criminal defamation complaint vide its

judgment in S. Khushboo v. Kaniammal & Ors. (2010) 5
SCC 600 by stating:
“We now turn to the question whether the
appellant's remarks could reasonably amount to
offence of defamation as defined under Section
499 IPC. In the impugned judgment dated
30.4.2008, the High Court observed that as to
whether the appellant could claim a defence
against the allegations of defamation was a factual
question and thus would be decided by a trial
Court. However, even before examining whether the
appellant can claim any of the statutory defences in
this regard, the operative question is whether the
allegations in the impugned complaints support a
prima facie case of defamation in the first place. It
is our considered view that there is no prima facie
case of defamation in the present case.”
39. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while upholding the
constitutional validity of criminal defamation (Section 499-
501 IPC) in Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India
(2016) 7 SCC 221 cautioned regarding mechanical
issuance of process by the Magistrate in cases of
defamation. The relevant paragraph is reproduced herein
below:
“The Court, though in a different context, has
observed that there lies responsibility and duty on
the Magistracy to find whether the concerned
accused should be legally responsible for the offence
charged for. Only on satisfying that the law casts
liability or creates offence against the juristic person
or the persons impleaded then only process would be
issued. At that stage the court would be circumspect
and judicious in exercising discretion and should
take all the relevant facts and circumstances into
consideration before issuing process lest it would be
an instrument in the hands of the private complaint
as vendetta to harass the persons needlessly.”

40. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Kumar Sitaram
Pande v. Uttam (1999) 3 SCC 134 held that exceptions to
defamation, as provided in Section 499 IPC, can be tested
even at the initial stage when the exceptions are apparent
from the record. The Court held:
“The next question that arises for consideration is
whether reading the complaint and the report of the
Treasury Officer which was obtained pursuant to the
Order of the Magistrate under sub-section (1) of Section
201 can it be said that a prima facie case exist for trial or
exception 8 to Section 499 clearly applies and
consequently in such a case, calling upon the accused to
face trial would be a travesty of justice. The gravamen of
the allegations in the complaint petition is that the
accused persons made a complaint to the Treasury
Officer, Amravati, containing false imputations to the
effect that the complainant had come to the office in a
drunken state and abused the Treasury Officer,
Additional Treasury Officer and the Collector and
circulated in the office in the filthy language and such
imputations had been made with the intention to cause
damage to the reputation and services of the
complainant. In order to decide the correctness of this
averment, the Magistrate instead of issuing process had
called upon the Treasury Officer to hold inquiry and
submit a report and the said Treasury Officer did submit
a report to the Magistrate. The question for consideration
is whether the allegations in the complaint read with the
report of the Magistrate make out the offence
under Section 500 or not. Section 499 of the Indian Penal
Code defines the offence of defamation and Section
500 provides the punishment for such offence. Exception
8 to Section 499 clearly indicates that it is not a
defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against
any person to any of those who have lawful authority
over that person with regard to the subject matter of
accusation. The report of the Treasury Officer clearly
indicates that pursuant to the report made by the
accused persons against the complainant, a
departmental inquiry had been initiated and the
complainant was found to be guilty. Under such
circumstances the fact that the accused persons had
made a report to the superior officer of the complainant
alleging that he had abused to the Treasury Officer in a

drunken state which is the gravamen of the present
complaint and nothing more, would be covered by
exception 8 to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. By
perusing the allegations made in the complaint petition,
we are also satisfied that no case of defamation has
been made out. In this view of the matter, requiring the
accused persons to face trial or even to approach the
Magistrate afresh for reconsideration of the question of
issuance of process would not be in the interest of justice.
On the other hand in our considered opinion this is a fit
case for quashing the order of issuance of process and
the proceedings itself. We, therefore, set aside the
impugned order of the High Court and confirm the order
of the learned Sessions Judge and quash the criminal
proceeding itself. This appeal is allowed."
GROUNDS
A. Because petitioner through her Twitter handle i.e. @bainjal
was commenting on the code of conduct of the ruling party in
appointment of a spokesperson of low credentials as that of
the respondent while tweeting that “Now the man who beat up
@pbhushan1 was arrested in a sexual harassment case
speaks for @BJP4India. Good job” dated 15.03.2017.
Petitioner had only remarked on the conduct of the ruling
party herein BJP in appointment of a person as their
spokesman who had criminally assaulted an advocate and
who had been involved in a sexual harassment case. The
tweet was targeted at the BJP and not respondent per se. The
tweet was also based on nothing but truth and in good faith
as this petition shows. The tweet was a step towards
accountability of the functioning of the ruling party BJP and
to alert the public about its code of conduct. The tweet was
thus in public interest.

B. Because respondent being the spokesperson of the BJP has
with ulterior intention targeted the petitioner who is a
journalist of high repute and eminence, by filing the mala fide
complaint because the petitioner has written an investigative
book titled ‘I am a troll: Inside the secret world of the BJP’s
digital army’ which uncovers the systemic abuse and attack
made by the BJP affiliated persons on the social networking
websites. The Petitioner has illustrated respondent in the
book as a BJP’s Internet warrior who graduated from online
abuse to actual violence. Her book has been widely acclaimed
and praised internationally and nationally. The petitioner has
been consistently exposing the wrong doings of the
government and the ruling party in her book and her
writings. Her investigative stories have exposed the wrong
acts of various governments and political parties over the last
20 years. However, till date she has not faced any defamation
or other criminal charges throughout her career as an
investigative journalist. Respondent with an ulterior motive to
harass the petitioner has filed this defamation case.
C. Because there is a clear reason why the respondent has
chosen to target specifically the petitioner and not to file any
complaint or case against numerous others who have
commented on his appointment as spokesperson of the BJP.
The fact that the respondent is the person who attacked Mr.
Prashant Bhushan is confirmed by various news reports, the
charge-sheet filed by Delhi Police and respondent’s own
candid admissions. However, respondent has chosen not file

any defamation complaint against any person for naming him
as the person who assaulted Mr. Bhushan. Further
respondent has also not taken any action against Dr. Jwala
Gurunath for filing a sexual harassment case against him.
Thus it can be inferred that only the petitioner has been
specifically targeted to silence her voice. It is also to be noted
that the petitioner has never been accused of defamation in
her career spanning over 20 years.
D. Because the conduct of the respondent is dubious and
questionable. Respondent in 2010 had attacked the car of one
Kashmiri leader in Delhi, in 2011 he had disrupted Ms.
Arundhati Roy’s book launch in Delhi and in 2012 he had
heckled a Kashmiri Hurriyat leader in Delhi. Respondent has
been extremely active on micro-blogging website Twitter and
other social media targeting critics of the BJP. He is a
notorious social media troller. Respondent has even claimed
in his complaint that he has never been charged for sexual
harassment whereas it is not true as the complaint against
sexual harassment has been filed by Dr. Jawala Gurunath on
01.01.2016 with the Karnataka Police against the respondent
for sexual harassment and insult to her caste identity. Thus
the conduct of the respondent is dishonest, misleading and
questionable.
E. Because petitioner’s tweet is nothing but truth and it had two
parts: a) referring to Mr. Prashant Bhushan’s assault case;
and b) referring to involvement in a sexual harassment case.

As far as the first part is concerned, i.e. assault on Mr.
Bhushan, the same is reported extensively by a large section
of the media, both on the date of assault as well as
afterwards. The respondent had himself claimed credit for the
same using his twitter handle and was also arrested and
charge-sheeted by the Delhi Police. The respondent is out on
bail and the trial is still going on. For the respondent to
expect that no one would comment on his case till the trial is
completed and he is convicted, would mean that public would
have to wait for another 7-10 years before they can accuse
the respondent of the crime. As far as the second part of the
petitioner’s tweet is concerned, the same was a reference to
the accusation of sexual harassment made by Dr Jwala
Gurunath in January 2016. Dr. Gurunath had tweeted and
repeatedly accused the respondent of sexual harassment. An
FIR was also lodged against the respondent for sexual
harassment by Dr. Jwala Gurunath. Her accusations have
been reported in media and have been commented on Twitter
by various prominent persons, but the respondent has
chosen not file any complaint against them. Further, he has
also not filed any defamation complaint against Dr.
Gurunath.
F. Because the respondent along with two others on 12.10.2011
had trespassed and assaulted advocate Prashant Bhushan in
his Supreme Court chamber. After the attack, Mr. Bhushan
was taken to Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital where doctors said
that he had received minor injuries on his head and leg.

Hours before the assault the respondent had tweeted. "God
give us power to complete our mission." After the assault, the
respondent claimed credit for the assault exulting, “He try to
break my nation, I try to break his head. Hisab chukta.
Congrats to all. Operation Prashant Bhushan successful." In
another tweet he had posted: "We hit Prashant Bhushan hard
in his chamber in Supreme Court. If you will try to break my
nation, I will break your heads.” An FIR (182/2011) was
registered at Tilak Marg Police Station on the same date, i.e.
12.10.2011 and one of the accused Inder Verma was arrested.
On the next date, the respondent was arrested by the Delhi
Police along with another accused Vishnu Gupta for the
assault of Mr. Prashant Bhushan. A chargesheet was later
filed by the Delhi Police against the three accused including
the respondent under Sections 452, 323, 120(B) and 34 of the
IPC for the brutal assault on Mr. Prashant Bhushan.
G. Because the respondent has also been accused of sexual
harassment by Dr. Jwala Gurunath in a police complaint.
Between 02.01.2016 and 08.06.2017, Dr Jwala Gurunath on
twitter (@DrJwalaG) repeatedly accused the respondent of
sexual harassment. She alleged that the respondent had
made an indecent proposal by calling her 25 times to stay
over her place. A police complaint was lodged by Dr. Jawala
Gurunath on 01.01.2016 with the Karnataka Police against
the respondent for sexual harassment and insult to her caste
identity. In her letter to the police, Dr Gurunath has accused
the respondent of making an indecent proposal by calling her

nearly 25 times. On 08.01.2016, an FIR 3/2016 was
registered by the Karnataka Police at Kalburgi, Karnataka on
the complaint of Dr. Jwala Gurunath against the respondent.
The case was subsequently transferred to Bangaluru. Crime
No. 32/2016 was registered by Bangaluru Police under
Section 3 of SC&ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989, and
Section 66A of the Information Technology Act 2000. Though
the complainant had alleged harassment by the respondent,
the FIR did not mention the sections in IPC relating to sexual
harassment. Ld. Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court in
a petition filed by the respondent herein under Section 482
CrPC, vide judgment dated 14.07.2016, quashed proceedings
in Crime No. 32/16 of Kumaraswamy Layout police station,
Bengaluru on the ground that the complainant (Dr. Jawala
Gurunath) had not disclosed in her complaint that the
respondent was not a member of SC/ST and that he had
intentionally insulted her with an intent to humiliate in
public view. The learned single judge also observed that the
Hon’ble Supreme Court had already struck down Section 66A
of the IT Act and therefore, the said offence was not attracted.
Though the FIR got quashed based on legal technicalities, it
can not be completely negated that the sexual harassment
case was initiated against the respondent.
H. Because the respondent is a public personality and BJP is the
dominant national political party. The information shared in
the article relates to public conduct of a public person and a
public entity. When the petitioner came to know about the

appointment of the respondent as BJP’s spokesperson, she
made a legitimate comment on public conduct of a political
party and their spokesperson. Petitioner’s tweet was
manifestly and ex-facie based on truth and made in public
interest. Thus, the complaint of the respondent is clearly bad
in law and is only filed to harass the petitioner. There is no
right to reputation against truth. Truth triumphs any claim
for damaged reputation. Truth and public interest are clear
statutorily recognized defenses to defamation under the IPC.
Clear exception is provided in Section 499 IPC which protects
petitioner against the charges of defamation. Thus, ex-facie
the offence of defamation is not made out since the
petitioner’s tweet is clearly covered by above clear exceptions
in built in the very definition of defamation as provided in
Section 499 IPC.
I. Because the respondent has not filed any defamation
complaint against Dr. Jwala Gurunath, a member of BJP for
publically naming the respondent as the person who
harassed her by calling her 25 times and asking her to allow
him to spend the night with her. Dr. Gurunath not only
lodged an FIR against the respondent, but also publically
tweeted about it numerous times and also wrote about it to
several prominent persons including the petitioner herein.
Since this matter came in public domain, numerous
publically influential persons have commented on it,
including on the character of the respondent. The respondent
also chose not to file any complaint against them. The

respondent specifically targeted the petitioner, using her
tweet as an excuse, in order to harass her using the legal
process by filing a mala fide complaint. This has been clearly
done to further his political career within the BJP since he
knows that his party has been adversely commented upon by
the petitioner in her numerous articles.
J. Because the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (1992) Supp 1 SCC 335 dealt
extensively with the power of the High Courts under Article
482 CrPC specifically with reference to petitions seeking
quashing of criminal complaints. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
specifically stated that the High Courts have the power to
quash complaint which is mala fide and laid down:
“In the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article
226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, the following categories of cases
are given by way of illustration wherein such power
could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process
of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice,
though it may not be possible to lay down any precise,
clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible
guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list
for myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be
exercised:
(a) where the allegations made in the First Information
Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their
face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima
facie constitute any offence or make out a case against
the accused;
(b) where the allegations in the First Information Report
and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do
not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the
Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the
purview of Section 155(2)of the Code;

(c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR
or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the
same do not disclose the commission of any offence and
make out a case against the accused;
(d) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated
under Section 155(2) of the Code;
(e) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are
so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of
which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion
that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused;
(f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of
the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under
which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the
institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or
where there is a specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party;
(g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking
vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him
due to private and personal grudge.”
K. Because the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R. Rajagopal vs.
State of Tamil Nadu, (1994) 6 SCC 632 had endorsed
Justice Brennan’s caution that:
“A rule compelling the critic of official conduct to
guarantee the truth of all his factual assertions — and
to do so on pain of libel judgments virtually unlimited
in amount—leads to … “self-censorship”. Allowance of
the defense of truth, with the burden of proving it on
the defendant, does not mean that only false speech
will be deterred. Even courts accepting this defense as
an adequate safeguard have recognized the difficulties
of adducing legal proofs that the alleged libel was true
in all its factual particulars. … Under such a rule,
would-be critics of official conduct may be deterred
from voicing their criticism, even though it is believed

to be true and even though it is in fact true, because of
doubt whether it can be proved in court or fear of the
expense of having to do so. They tend to make only
statements which ‘steer far wider of the unlawful
zone’…. The rule thus dampens the vigor and limits
the variety of public debate. It is inconsistent with the
First and Fourteenth Amendments. The constitutional
guarantees require, we think, a federal rule that
prohibits a public official from recovering damages for
a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct
unless he proves that the statement was made with
‘actual malice’ — that is, with knowledge that it was
false or with reckless disregard of whether it was
false or not.”
If a libel action is forbidden, even more so should criminal
action be forbidden lest it stifle democratic discourse.
Criminal Courts should therefore adjudge defamation
complaints in the spirit of Supreme Court’s philosophical
mandate.
L. Because a three judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
had quashed a criminal defamation complaint vide its
judgment in S. Khushboo v. Kaniammal & Ors. (2010) 5
SCC 600 by stating:
“We now turn to the question whether the
appellant's remarks could reasonably amount to
offence of defamation as defined under Section
499 IPC. In the impugned judgment dated
30.4.2008, the High Court observed that as to
whether the appellant could claim a defence
against the allegations of defamation was a factual
question and thus would be decided by a trial
Court. However, even before examining whether the
appellant can claim any of the statutory defences in
this regard, the operative question is whether the
allegations in the impugned complaints support a
prima facie case of defamation in the first place. It
is our considered view that there is no prima facie
case of defamation in the present case.”

PRAYER
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble
Court may kindly be pleased to:
(a) Quash the Complaint Case No. 44490 of 2017 titled
“Tajinder Pal Singh Bagga vs. Swati Chaturvedi”
pending in the Court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate-6,
Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, filed by the
respondent under Section 200 CrPC against the
petitioner for allegedly having committed offences under
Section 499, 500 and 501 IPC;
(b) Quash the summoning order dated 17.05.2018 passed
by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate-6, Patiala House
Courts, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 44490 of 2017
titled “Tajinder Pal Singh Bagga vs. Swati Chaturvedi”;
(c) This Hon'ble Court may also pass such and further
order/orders as may be deemed fit and proper on the
facts and in the circumstances of this case.
PETITIONER:
THROUGH:
PRANAV SACHDEVA
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER
DRAWN BY: Surabhi Kumari
DELHI
DATED: JULY 2018

CRL.M.A. NO. OF 2018
IN
IN THE MATTER OF:-
VERSUS
APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS UNDER
SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973
FOR STAY OF PROCEEDING BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT
DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE PETITION
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-
complaint (being Complaint Case No. 44490 of 2017) filed
by the Respondent herein under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for
initiating the proceedings under Section 499, 500 and 501
of IPC against the Petitioner herein. This petition also
seeks quashing of the summoning order dated 17.05.2018
passed by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate-6, Patiala House
Courts, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 44490 of 2017
titled as “Tajinder Pal Singh Bagga vs. Swati Chaturvedi”.
2. Petitioner made a legitimate comment on public conduct of
a political party and their spokesperson. Petitioner’s tweet
was manifestly and ex-facie based on truth and made in
public interest. Thus, the complaint of the respondent is
clearly bad in law and is only filed to harass the petitioner.
There is no right to reputation against truth. Truth
triumphs any claim for damaged reputation. Truth and

public interest are clear statutorily recognized defenses to
defamation under the IPC. Clear exception is provided in
Section 499 IPC which protects petitioner against the
charges of defamation. Thus, ex-facie the offence of
defamation is not made out since the petitioner’s tweet is
clearly covered by above clear exceptions in built in the
very definition of defamation as provided in Section 499
IPC.
3. That the impugned summoning order dated 17.05.2018 is
patently erroneous and unsustainable and the same in all
likelihood is liable to be set aside by this Hon’ble Court on
the grounds mentioned in the petition.
4. That for the reasons stated in the petition the balance of
convenience lies in favour of the petitioner and they will
suffer irreparable loss if the proceeding before the Trial
court is not stayed during the pendency of the present
petition as the same may result into grave injustice and
harassment to the petitioners.
5. The proceeding before the Ld. Trial Court is, therefore,
deserves to be stayed during the pendency of the present
petition and immediate protection from this Hon’ble Court
is prayed for because the criminal complaint is listed on
12.07.2018.
6. The present application is being filed bonafide and in the
interest of justice.
PRAYER
In the aforesaid premises, it is most respectfully prayed that this
Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

i. Grant ex-parte ad-interim order staying the proceeding of the
criminal complaint no. 44490 of 2018 titled as “Tajinder Pal
Singh Bagga vs. Swati Chaturvedi” pending before the
Metropolitan Magistrate-6, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.
ii. This Hon’ble Court may pass such other and further order(s)
as it may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.
PETITIONER:
THROUGH:
PRANAV SACHDEVA
MOBILE NO: +91-9910523811

IN
IN THE MATTER OF:-
VERSUS
APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS UNDER
SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973
FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING THE CERTIFIED COPIES OF
THE ANNEXURES
The Petitioners most respectfully submit as under:-
complaint (being Complaint Case No. 44490 of 2017) filed by
the Respondent herein under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for
initiating the proceedings under Section 499, 500 and 501 of
IPC against the Petitioner herein. This petition also seeks
quashing of the summoning order dated 17.05.2018 passed
by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate-6, Patiala House Courts,
New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 44490 of 2017 titled as
“Tajinder Pal Singh Bagga vs. Swati Chaturvedi”.
2. The Petitioner along with the present petition have filed
certain annexures as true copies their originals and some of
the annexures are dim.
3. The Petitioners undertake to file the certified copy of the
Annexures and as when the same will be made available to
them. In the meantime, the Petitioner is filing true copies of
the Annexures.

4. The Petitioners are filing the true copies of the Annexures for
the time being because the matter is of urgent nature and
criminal complaint is listed before the Ld. Trial Court on
12.07.2018.
PRAYER
In the aforesaid premises, it is most respectfully prayed that this
Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
i. Exempt the Petitioners from filing the certified copies of the
Annexures and allow the petitioners to file dim & small font
annexures;
ii. This Hon’ble Court may pass such other and further order(s)
as it may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.
PETITIONER:
THROUGH:
PRANAV SACHDEVA
MOBILE NO: +91-9910523811

IN
IN THE MATTER OF:-
VERSUS
APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO FILE DIM COPY/
SHORT FONT/ ILLEGIBLE ANNEXURES UNDER
SECTION 151 OF THE CPC WITH AFFIDAVIT
To,
THE HON’BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE DELHI HIGH
COURT;
AND HER COMPANION JUDGES OF THE DELHI HIGH
COURT.
The Humble Petition of the Petitioner above-named
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: -
1. That it is submitted that the applicant has placed on record
annexure/s which are dim, part of the gazette notification
and official communications. Considering the urgency in the
matter the same could not by typed. The petitioner
undertakes to furnish typed copy of the same as and when
directed by this Hon’ble Court.
PRAYERS
In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is most
respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased: -
i. Permit the applicant from filing dim copy/ short
font/ illegible annexures; and/or

ii. To grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court
may deem fit and proper in light of the facts and
circumstances of the case.
Filed Through:
PRANAV SACHDEVA
NEW DELHI 301, NEW LAWYERSCHAMBER
ENROLMENT NO.: D/1806/2009
MOBILE NO: +91-9910523811

IN
IN THE MATTER OF:-
VERSUS
I, Swati Chaturvedi, D/o Shri Gopal Chaturvedi, R/o _________, do
hereby solemnly state and affirm as under:
1. That I am Petitioner in the above noted petition and as such,
well conversant with the facts of the case and thus competent
to swear this affidavit.
2. The contents of the accompanying application has been
drafted under my instructions and the facts stated therein are
true and correct to my knowledge.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:-
Verified at New Delhi on this day of July 2018 that the contents
of this affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge; no
part of it it false and nothing material has been concealed therein.
DEPONENT

Journalist Swati Chaturvedi's petition

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (18)

Similaire à Journalist Swati Chaturvedi's petition

Similaire à Journalist Swati Chaturvedi's petition (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Journalist Swati Chaturvedi's petition