In a landmark ruling, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court has determined that defamatory statements made by lawyers in court can indeed lead to criminal defamation charges against their clients. This decision came in the case of Satya Prakash Arya v. Syed Abid Jalali (CRMC No. 129/2017), delivered by Justice Sanjay Dhar.
Background of the Case
The dispute began between Satya Prakash Arya (the petitioner) and Syed Abid Jalali (the respondent) over a business transaction. In 2013, Jalali had issued cheques worth Rs. 14 lakhs to Arya as part of a settlement. Arya later filed a complaint in Jaipur, resulting in an FIR against Jalali. During Jalali's bail hearing, Arya's lawyer allegedly accused Jalali of links to the banned terrorist group Hizbul Mujahideen. This claim led to the rejection of Jalali's bail application and extensive media coverage, which purportedly harmed Jalali's reputation and business interests in Coa and Jammu & Kashmir. The Rajasthan High Court later granted Jalali bail after he was cleared of any terrorist connections by the National Investigation Agency (NIA).
The Defamation Complaint
Jalali responded by filing a criminal defamation complaint against Arya in the Chief Judicial Magistrate's court in Srinagar. The magistrate had issued a process against Arya for defamation under Sections 499, 500, and 501 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC).
Key Legal Issues and Court's Decision
1. Defamation from Court Arguments: The court affirmed that defamatory statements made in court, including those by lawyers on behalf of their clients, can lead to criminal defamation charges. Justice Dhar commented, "It is clear that even arguments made by counsel, based on instructions from their client, which are inherently defamatory, can form the basis for prosecution under Section 499 of RPC."
2. Jurisdiction of Srinagar Court: Although the court recognized that defamatory court arguments could be grounds for defamation charges, it ruled that the Srinagar court did not have jurisdiction over this particular case. Justice Dhar observed, "The alleged defamation did not occur within the Srinagar court's jurisdiction, nor did its consequences."
3. Nature of Media Reports: The court reviewed newspaper reports presented as evidence and found them non-defamatory. Justice Dhar stated, "The newspaper clippings show that they merely reported on Jalali being cleared of terror charges and are not defamatory."
Conclusion
The High Court accepted Arya's petition, overturning the Chief Judicial Magistrate's order. It directed the magistrate to return the complaint to Jalali to be presented before a court with proper jurisdiction.
AdvoTalks: Talk to Lawyer https://www.advotalks.com/
for More Legal Updates visit our youtube channel
