MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI versus MANISH SISODIA & ORS

MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI versus MANISH SISODIA & ORS

Persons falling under Section 199(2) CrPC may either follow the special procedure in Section 199(4) (complaint by Public Prosecutor with sanction) or may invoke the preserved individual right under Section 199(6) to file a complaint before a Magistrate; the special procedure does not extinguish the individual right. Further, the tweets by accused No.5 were held not to be defamatory within Section 499 IPC as they were general/vague allegations (e.g. 'your answer will disclose your scam') lacking the specificity and propensity to harm reputation, and therefore the summoning order is set aside insofar as A-5; the appeal of A-1 challenging on Section 199(2)/(4) grounds was dismissed.

Parties
Appellant / Accused No.1: Manoj Kumar Tiwari; Respondent No.1 / Complainant / Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi: Manish Sisodia; Appellant / Accused No.5: Vijender Gupta
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
17 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / On Appeal From High Court Judgment Dismissing Section 482 Petitions Challenging Summons Issued by Magistrate
Outcome
Appeal of Vijender Gupta (A-5) allowed in part; appeal of Manoj Kumar Tiwari (A-1) dismissed
Legal Topics
Section 199 Cr PC Procedure, Private Complaint Under Section 200 Cr PC, Defamation (sections 499, 500 Ipc), Summoning Order, Section 65 B Indian Evidence Act, Compensation/protection Provisions (sections 237, 250 Cr Pc)
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Defamation Evidence Law Section 199 Cr PC Procedure Private Complaint Under Section 200 Cr PC Defamation (sections 499,500 Ipc) Summoning Order +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Appellant / Accused No.1

Manish Sisodia

Respondent No.1 / Complainant / Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi

Vijender Gupta

Appellant / Accused No.5

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / On Appeal From High Court Judgment Dismissing Section 482 Petitions Challenging Summons Issued by Magistrate

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a person covered by Section 199(2) CrPC is obliged to follow only the special procedure in Section 199(4) or may proceed under Section 199(6) as an individual
  2. 2 Whether tweets of accused No.5 (Vijender Gupta) constitute defamation under Section 499 IPC and offence under Section 500 IPC
  3. 3 Whether digital tweet transcripts required compliance with Section 65B Evidence Act

Ratio Decidendi

Persons falling under Section 199(2) CrPC may either follow the special procedure in Section 199(4) (complaint by Public Prosecutor with sanction) or may invoke the preserved individual right under Section 199(6) to file a complaint before a Magistrate; the special procedure does not extinguish the individual right. Further, the tweets by accused No.5 were held not to be defamatory within Section 499 IPC as they were general/vague allegations (e.g. 'your answer will disclose your scam') lacking the specificity and propensity to harm reputation, and therefore the summoning order is set aside insofar as A-5; the appeal of A-1 challenging on Section 199(2)/(4) grounds was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal of Vijender Gupta (A-5) allowed in part; appeal of Manoj Kumar Tiwari (A-1) dismissed

Orders

  • Order of summoning dated 28.11.2019 passed by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-I in Ct. Case 51/2019 is set aside insofar as Shri Vijender Gupta (Accused No.5) is concerned
  • Complaint may proceed against the other accused