In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court addressed the legal intricacies surrounding a defamation complaint filed by Dev Karan Rajput against Anupama Kumari. The case, numbered CRL.M.C. 5347/2024 along with CRL.M.A. 20466/2024 (Stay), revolves around allegations that Kumari, an employee of Rajput’s company, M/s. Miraz Facility Management Services Private Limited, made defamatory statements via a WhatsApp status on July 1, 2021, after absconding from work on April 16, 2021.
Legal Issues Involved
The primary legal issue in this case pertains to the validity of pre-summoning evidence presented by a power of attorney holder rather than the complainant himself. The complainant, Dev Karan Rajput, had his Special Power of Attorney (SPA) holder, Deepak Kumar, present the pre-summoning evidence on February 15, 2022. The defense argued that this was not permissible under the law, citing a precedent set by a Coordinate Bench of the Delhi High Court in Business Standard Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Lohitaksha Shukla & Anr., 2021 SCC OnLine Del 988, CRL.M.C. 621/2017. According to this precedent, cognizance of a defamation complaint can only be taken upon receiving a complaint from the person who is aggrieved.
Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Anish Dayal, issued a stay on the proceedings pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) in Dwarka Courts, Delhi. The court acknowledged the argument that pre-summoning evidence should have been led by the complainant himself and not by a power of attorney holder. The court has scheduled the next hearing for August 1, 2024, and has directed that a notice be issued to the respondent through all permissible modes, including email.
Important Observations
Justice Anish Dayal made several critical observations during the hearing:
– On the Validity of Pre-summoning Evidence: “Pre-summoning evidence could not have been led by the power of attorney holder and it was mandatory that the complainant itself ought to have been examined.”
– On the Role of the Aggrieved Person: “Cognizance may only be taken upon receiving a complaint by ‘a person who is aggrieved’.”
Also Read
Parties Involved
– Complainant: Dev Karan Rajput, represented by his SPA holder, Deepak Kumar.
– Accused: Anupama Kumari, a former employee of M/s. Miraz Facility Management Services Private Limited.
– Counsel for Petitioner: Not specified in the provided document.
– Bench: Justice Anish Dayal.
