Section 500

The Rajasthan High Court quashed criminal defamation proceedings pending since 2003 against Rajasthan Patrika and its Editor-in-Chief over a local news report, holding that neither the complaint nor the evidence attributed any specific role or intention to them, and that a newspaper company is not liable without proof of its management's knowledge. Cognizance without the ingredients of defamation undermines press freedom (paras 35-42, 49-50).

The Bombay High Court dismissed Rahul Gandhi's petition against a Mumbai magistrate's 2019 order issuing process for defamation on a complaint by a BJP member over his 2018 remarks about the Prime Minister, including the "Commander-in-Thief" post (paras 1-9, 22). Following John Thomas, it held that the complainant need not be the person actually defamed, and that whether the imputation extended to party members must await trial (paras 19-20).

The Rajasthan High Court discharged a cricket coach charged with abetting the suicide of a fellow coach who, the complaint alleged, had been harassed and threatened in a WhatsApp group. Abetment under Section 306 IPC needs intentional instigation or aid with a clear mens rea, and mere allegations of harassment do not suffice for framing a charge (paras 10-11, 14). The defamation and insult charges also fell because the evidence did not show he sent any derogatory messages (para 25).

The Rajasthan High Court declined to entertain a petition to quash an FIR under Sections 500 and 120-B IPC and Sections 66 and 66C of the Information Technology Act, holding that at the preliminary stage a quashing plea could not rest merely on self-serving affidavits (para 7). The petitioners should first have approached a superior police officer under Section 36 CrPC; the petition was disposed of with that liberty, the alleged offences being bailable (paras 8-9).