LexJAIDEEP BOSE versus M/S BID AND HAMMER AUCTIONEERS PRIVATE LIMITED
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 234 : 2025 INSC 241 Jaideep Bose v. M/s Bid and Hammer Auctioneers Private Limited (Criminal Appeal No. 814 of 2025) 18 February 2025 [J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the petition filed by the appellants challenging the initiation of the criminal proceedings against them for the offences u/ss.499 and 500 IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.499, 500 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.202 – Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 – Private complaint – Criminal Defamation – Postponement of issue of process – Inquiry by magistrate before issuing process – Liability of legal entities other than editor – Complainant-respondent filed a single complaint against 14 accused u/s.200 CrPC rw ss.499 and 500 IPC pertaining to different news articles written on different dates and published in different editions in different States, which contained alleged defamatory contents regarding the authenticity of certain paintings to be auctioned by the respondent – Respondent examined and his statement recorded – Thereafter, the magistrate took cognizance of the complaint, directed to register the same and issued summons to the accused – Appellants-accused and company-A1 sought quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated against them – High Court quashed the complaint only in respect of company A1, however, dismissed as against the appellants – Correctness: Held: It is the editor who plays a key role in the publication process bearing responsibility for ensuring that the content published adheres to legal standards – Merely because the Act, does not mention persons holding other roles in a publication of the company, such as Editorial Director, or mandate the publication of * Author [2025] 3 S.C.R. 235 Jaideep Bose v. M/s Bid and Hammer Auctioneers Private Limited their names, the same does not imply that such persons cannot be made liable for any defamatory content – Key distinction is that unlike an editor, against whom a statutory presumption is imposed, there is no such presumption against the editorial director at the outset – While the Act does not recognise any other legal entity-Chief Editor, Managing Editor, etc. for raising a presumption, such individuals can still be proceeded against, but only when specific allegations are made against them – Complaint merely alleges that the appellant A2-editorial director of the company, oversaw the publications, no other averments made to establish how A2 was responsible for controlling the selection of contents of the newspaper publications – Such broad, general or blanket statement without specific or substantive details cannot justify the issuance of summons – Moreso, A2 resides in Mumbai, which falls outside the jurisdiction of the concerned Magistrate – Magistrate was required to proceed with the complaint in accordance with s.202(1) Cr.P.C, however, no such inquiry was conducted, thus, complaint not maintainable against A2 – Regarding other appellants, all news articles individually authored by the various accused not considered – High Court referred only to one article authored by A4 – Mandatory procedure u/s.202 Cr.P.C. not followed – Magistrate’s order suffers from procedural irregularity – No material to suggest that the auction was unsuccessful or that any damage or loss was actually caused, due to the alleged news articles published in the newspapers – Also no intent to defame or harm the complainant’s reputation – Thus, impugned order passed by the High Court, summoning orders by the magistrate and criminal proceedings initiated against the appellants quashed. [Paras 19-20, 22] Constitution of India – Art.19(1)(a) – Right to freedom of speech and expression – Power of media – Impact on public opinion: Held: Right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed u/Art.19(1)(a) is paramount – Those working in the media, particularly, individuals in key positions, authors, etc., must exercise utmost caution and responsibility before publishing any statements, news, or opinions – Power of the media in shaping public opinion is significant and the press possesses the ability to influence public sentiments and alter perceptions, with remarkable speed – Given its vast reach, it has the capability to 236 [2025] 3 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports cause severe damage to the reputation of those concerned, wit
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.