The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal seeking ₹10 lakh in damages for alleged defamation over statements made in a police complaint, holding that the disputed remarks, when read in context, did not establish a cause of action for defamation.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna delivered the judgment, upholding the rejection of the defamation suit by the District Court.
Background
Jai Gupta, an advocate, alleged that Sunil Kumar Roy had borrowed ₹2 lakh from him in May 2017 and failed to repay the amount. Roy, however, claimed that the money was connected to an agreement for the transfer of a chamber at Patiala House Courts.
The dispute escalated on March 3, 2022, when both parties accused each other of misconduct during an altercation. Roy lodged a complaint with Tilak Marg Police Station, alleging assault and threats. His complaint also stated that Gupta was influential and had connections with criminal elements.
Gupta claimed that this statement damaged his professional reputation and sought ₹10 lakh in damages. The District Court rejected his suit on August 16, 2024, prompting the appeal before the High Court.
Justice Krishna examined whether the disputed statement, considered alongside the entire police complaint, could independently support a civil defamation claim.
The Court observed:
"A defamatory statement is one which has a tendency to injure the reputation of the person to whom it refers; which tends to lower him in the estimation of right thinking members of society generally."
The judgment emphasised that the statement could not be separated from the surrounding allegations, particularly Roy's claim that he feared for his life.
The Court further observed:
"mere filing of a complaint with the Police does not, by itself, constitute defamation."
It also noted that Gupta had not identified any person who heard the disputed statement or whose estimation of him had allegedly been lowered because of it.
The High Court found no sufficient basis to interfere with the District Court's decision. It held that the disputed statement, viewed in its context, did not amount to defamation per se and that the pleadings failed to establish the necessary elements of the claim.
The Court dismissed the appeal and disposed of the pending applications accordingly.
Case Details:
Case Title: Jai Gupta v. Sunil Kumar Roy
Case Number: RFA 56/2025
Judge: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Decision Date: October 27, 2026
