The Gujarat High Court has dismissed a petition seeking to revive a criminal defamation inquiry arising from alleged material circulated on Facebook and reports published in two newspapers in connection with a land dispute in Narmada district.
Justice J. L. Odedra found that the petitioner had not placed the alleged police application, which formed the basis of his complaint, on record. The Court also noted that the person alleged to have circulated the application on Facebook had not been made a party to the proceedings.
Background
The proceedings were filed by Vijaybhai Jeysingbhai Vasava against the State of Gujarat and another, challenging orders passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Dediyapada and the Sessions Court at Narmada.
The petitioner had filed a complaint under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code against respondent No. 2, Rajeshbhai Ratilal Vasava. The dispute related to land described as Compartment No. 396, Plot No. 2, measuring 2 hectares and 60 square metres, in Bandishervan village of Dediyapada, Narmada district.
According to the petitioner, respondent No. 2 had submitted an application to the police concerning the land. The petitioner alleged that the application contained allegations that cattle had grazed standing crops on the land at his instance and that of his associates.He further claimed that an individual had subsequently uploaded the application and photographs on Facebook. The petitioner also relied on reports published in Gujarat Samachar and Sandesh, alleging that these reports were published at the instance of respondent No. 2. These were the petitioner's allegations before the Court.
The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dediyapada dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Magistrate noted that the alleged original application had not been produced and that whether the allegations in it were true or false would be a matter for investigation. The Court also noted that the newspaper reports did not mention the petitioner's name.
The petitioner challenged that order before the Sessions Court. The revisional court also declined to interfere, observing that the alleged application was not on record and that the petitioner had not prima facie established that the newspaper reports were published at the respondent's instance.
The High Court found a basic evidentiary gap in the petitioner's case.
"Clearly, the alleged application (i.e., the original application) made by respondent No.2 in respect of the subject land was not adduced on record by the petitioner herein. It was also not adduced on record even in the revisional proceedings. Therefore, the very edifice, on which the petitioner claims that respondent No.2 has defamed, is missing."
The Court further observed that Vasava Champak, who was alleged to have circulated the application and photographs through Facebook, had not been impleaded before the Magistrate. It also noted that the newspaper reports did not mention the name of the person allegedly responsible for grazing the crops.
The High Court also considered the position assuming that the alleged application had in fact been filed.
The Court held that merely filing an application before a person or authority having lawful authority over the subject matter of the accusation does not, by itself, amount to defamation when covered by Exception 8 to Section 499 of the IPC.
In view of its findings, the High Court held that there was no basis to direct restoration of Enquiry No. 02 of 2022 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dediyapada.
The Court therefore dismissed the Special Criminal Application as being devoid of merit. The petition was disposed of accordingly and the Rule was discharged.
Case Title: Vijaybhai Jeysingbhai Vasava v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
Case Number: R/Special Criminal Application (Quashing) No. 8920 of 2023
Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. L. Odedra
Decision Date: 09 September 2026
