Petitioner sought quashing of an inquiry report alleging defamation by mediapersons. The Court held no justification for interference as no adverse action was taken based on the report and disposed of the petition without expressing opinion on merits.
Null
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 50
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11101 of 2020
Petitioner :- Harivaksh Singh And Another Respondent :- The District Magistrate And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailesh Kumar Shukla,Sheo Kinkar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sanjay Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondents - 1 and 2 and Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh for respondent -3.
It appears that petitioner-1, Harivaksh Singh, had filed a complaint addressed to the Chief Minister of UP through the District Magistrate, Kannauj alleging therein that Journalist Nitya Prakash Mishra, respondent -4, and his associate Anuradha Sonkar, respondent-5, are trying to malign the reputation of the complainant. It was also alleged in the complaint that through Whatsapp as well as other social media platforms false allegations were being levelled and threats were also extended that the complainant and his nephew would be implicated in a false case of atrocity on the members of scheduled caste.
It seems that on the complaint, so made, some inquiry was conducted at the level of Up Ziladhikari, Sadar, Kannauj and a report was submitted to the District Magistrate, Kannauj on 3.7.2019. The findings returned in the report dated 3.7.2019 have been challenged in this petition and a prayer has been made that inquiry report dated 3.7.2019 be quashed.
The petitioner has also prayed that a high level impartial inquiry may be made in the matter.
From the record, it does not appear that an action adverse to the interest of the petitioner has been taken by acting on the inquiry report. Moreover, if the petitioner is aggrieved by any act of the private respondents, amounting to defamation or commission of an offense, it is always open to lodge a complaint or F.I.R., depending on the nature of offence, or to sue for damages, if so advised.
Holding an inquiry in such matters may not serve much purpose because findings returned in such inquiry are not binding either
on the civil court or the criminal court.
Under the circumstances, we do not find any justification to interfere with the inquiry report, particularly, when it is not shown that any adverse action has been taken against the petitioner acting on such inquiry report.
Subject to above, the writ petition is disposed off.
It is made clear we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner or the correctness of the findings recorded in the inquiry report.
Order Date :- 9.7.2020 Rahul Dwivedi/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the inquiry report which found no adverse action against the petitioner.
Harivaksh Singh
The District Magistrate
Nitya Prakash Mishra
Manoj Misra
Piyush Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
