The Allahabad High Court, while hearing a criminal defamation matter, has observed that mere publication of a news report or filing complaints on the Chief Minister’s and Prime Minister’s portals would not by itself constitute criminal defamation unless it is clearly established that the complaints were malicious and intended solely to damage a person’s reputation.
The order was passed by the Single Bench of Justice Chawan Prakash while allowing a petition filed by Meerut resident Vipin Kumar Malhotra and quashing the criminal proceedings initiated against him under Section 500 IPC on a complaint filed by physician Dr. Akshay Jain alleging defamation.
According to the case, the petitioner’s daughter was married to Udit Arya. Following her death under suspicious circumstances, the petitioner accused her in-laws of dowry harassment.
Read also: https://practicinglawyer.in/jharkhand-hc-foot-over-bridge-harmu-road/
In this connection, an FIR was lodged at Ganga Nagar Police Station, Meerut under Sections 498A and 304B IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against her husband Udit Arya and other members of the matrimonial family.
During the investigation, the names of Dr. Akshay Jain and his relative also surfaced.
Dr. Akshay Jain claimed that during deceased treatment, he had merely rewritten medicines prescribed by another doctor in clear handwriting on his own letterhead.
Later, after the accused persons in the dowry death case secured anticipatory bail, a news report titled “Dr. Akshay’s Prescription Used; Accused Granted Bail in Snigdha Case” was published in the Meerut edition of reputed newspaper on July 9, 2023.
Dr. Jain alleged that the news report and subsequent complaints filed against him had tarnished his social and professional reputation.
On this basis, he instituted a criminal defamation complaint, pursuant to which the trial court summoned Vipin Kumar Malhotra.
However, upon examining the record, the High Court found that the news item had been published under the byline “Jagran Correspondent,” and there was no evidence to establish that it was published by the applicant or his family members.
The Bench ruled that,
“Based on the material available on record, there is no evidence to prove that the applicant was responsible for the publication of the said news article. Furthermore, there is no evidence to prove that the complaints were made with malicious intent to harm the reputation of Dr. Akshay Kumar Jain. Additionally, opposite party no. 2 has not filed any evidence to prove that the applicant had conducted any press conference.”
The Court further noted that the petitioner’s complaints could not be treated as wholly baseless, since during the investigation, Call Detail Records (CDRs) revealed that on the day Dr. Jain allegedly wrote the prescription, Udit Arya’s location was not found near the doctor’s hospital, and no phone call between them was detected.
The Investigating Officer had also described the prescription as suspicious in his report.
The Court additionally observed that summoning a person in a criminal case is a serious matter and magistrates must carefully scrutinize the available material before issuing process.
Finding no concrete evidence of malice, the Court termed the summoning order “casual” and ultimately quashed the impugned orders as well as the entire criminal proceedings against the applicant.
Case: Vipin Kumar Malhotra vs State of U.P. and another
Case No: Application u/s 528 BNSS No. – 43284 of 2025
Date of Order: 15.05.2026
Status: Disposed of
