Allahabad High Court quashes defamation case against Jaipur Dialogues founder Sanjay Dixit over ‘Casanova’ remark

“There is no evidence produced by the opponent that supports his version, so his image could have been lowered in the eyes of others,” the court observed.

The court noted that for an imputation to be defamatory, it must directly or indirectly lower the moral or intellectual character of a person in the estimation of others.

Findings

• To constitute an offence of defamation, there has to be an imputation and an admission made in the manner as provided under the provision for knowing or causing harm or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of the person about whom it is made.
• The opponent is making an allegation that the imputation made by the petitioner Dixit would harm his reputation, but in his own eyes.
• No witness has been produced by him who could substantiate his case in view of the statutory requirement made in Section 499 IPC.
• It is the case of the opposite party that a large number of people have seen the video, which is defamatory in nature, but no one has been examined to prove their case, which is the statutory requirement.
• The complainant had not produced any witness under Section 202 Cr.P.C. to prima facie establish that the alleged imputation had lowered his image in the estimation of others, and the Magistrate has considered only the complainant’s statement while issuing summons.
• Thus, the order passed by the Magistrate clearly suffers from procedural irregularities.
• In view of the aforesaid discussion, this application deserves to be allowed.

Background

• The case originates from the complaint filed in December 2020 by Syed Rizwan Ahmad, a social activist and news panellist, against Dixit.
• Ahmad alleged that Dixit had defamed him through a July 2019 tweet referring to him as a “Casanova, lovebird and munafiq” or hypocrite.
• He further alleged that in one of the video on Jaipur Dialogue Forum youtube channel in October 2020, a guest allegedly accused him of trapping young women in “love jihad” and filing false FIRs against those who attempted to expose him.
• He registered the complaint under Sections 500 (punishment for defamation), 417 (punishment for cheating), 419 (punishment for cheating by personation), 153A (romoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony), and other related provisions the IPC and Section 66 (computer related offences) of the Information and Technology Act, 2000.
• Following the court proceedings and the summons in the case, Dixit filed the plea before the high court to quash the entire proceedings in the case.