Mandatory Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC for Out-of-Jurisdiction Accused in Defamation Cases: Supreme Court Of India

1. Introduction

The Supreme Court of India’s decision in Jaideep Bose v. M/s Bid and Hammer Auctioneers Private Limited (2025 INSC 241) clarifies the mandatory inquiry requirements under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) when the accused live outside a Magistrate’s jurisdiction, especially in criminal defamation proceedings. Multiple appeals were filed against a single private complaint alleging defamation under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The complaint arose after various newspapers published articles questioning the authenticity of artworks auctioned by the Respondent. The Judgement has now established a clear precedent: Magistrates must rigorously comply with Section 202 CrPC before issuing summons to accused persons residing outside their territorial jurisdiction.

Key parties to this dispute include: (i) the original Complainant, M/s Bid and Hammer Auctioneers (Respondent), alleging that certain articles were defamatory; (ii) the individual journalists and editorial staff (Appellants), who authored or supervised the publication of the alleged articles; and (iii) the editorial director, who was included as an accused but claimed no direct involvement in selecting or controlling the content.

The appeals centered on the procedural validity of summons and the substantive legality of the complaint. Ultimately, the Supreme Court quashed the proceedings against all Appellants, stressing the mandatory nature of Section 202 CrPC inquiry requirements and reemphasizing the delicate balance between free press and the right of individuals to project their reputation accurately.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed all the appeals, holding that the trial court did not comply with the mandatory inquiry stipulated under Section 202 CrPC since many of the accused resided outside Bengaluru’s jurisdiction, where the complaint was filed. Specifically, the Magistrate had issued summons on the strength of the Complainant’s statement alone, without examining other witnesses or conducting additional inquiries required by law.

The Court pointed out four major findings:

Non-compliance with Section 202 CrPC: The Magistrate is obliged to proceed with an inquiry or investigation to ascertain if there exist sufficient grounds to summon individuals residing outside the area in which the court exercises jurisdiction.
Lack of Specific Allegations Against Certain Accused: With respect to the Appellant who was the Editorial Director (Accused No. 2), the Court noted that the complaint merely alleged general oversight without specifying how he controlled the publication.
Insufficiency of Evidence of Reputational Damage: The Court observed that there were no witnesses who testified to the Complainant’s loss of reputation in the eyes of the public.
Media Freedom and Responsibility: While emphasizing the importance of press freedom, the Court also underscored the press’s duty to be accurate and cautious, given its potent influence on public opinion.

In light of these shortcomings, the Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings against all Appellants and emphasized the importance of complying with statutory procedures before subjecting individuals to criminal prosecution in defamation matters.

3. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

The Court relied upon certain important prior rulings that articulate and strengthen the mandatory nature of Section 202 CrPC. Decisions such as Abhijit Pawar v. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar (2017) 3 SCC 528, Vijay Dhanuka v. Najima Mamtaj (2014) 14 SCC 638, and Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate (1998) 5 SCC 749 were referenced to reinforce:

Section 202 CrPC is mandatory: Amended in 2005, it obliges the Magistrate to either inquire by examining witnesses or direct an investigation if the accused resides beyond the jurisdiction.
Presumption under Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867: Liability for defamation is presumed primarily against the named “Editor.” Other managerial personnel (like editorial directors) do not automatically incur liability absent specific allegations.

By emphasizing these precedents, the Supreme Court sought to prevent unjustified summons, thus ensuring that defamation complaints do not become a tool for harassing parties who may not have had any direct role in publishing allegedly defamatory statements.

B. Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court’s legal reasoning was twofold:

Procedural Fairness: The Court found that the Magistrate’s order summoning all accused was issued solely on the basis of the Complainant’s statement. This violated Section 202 CrPC, which expressly requires a Magistrate to postpone the issuance of process and conduct an inquiry in cases where the accused live outside the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction. Without fulfilling this procedural requirement, the criminal proceedings stood vitiated.
Lack of Specific Allegations: Although the Act imposes presumptive liability upon an editor whose name appears in the newspapers, no such presumption extends to an Editorial Director or other staff. Where no details indicate how that director actually supervised content, each person’s role must be individually shown and substantiated.

The Court thus concluded that the complaint’s bare assertion that the Editorial Director “oversaw publications” was insufficient to hold him criminally liable under Section 499 and 500 IPC. Moreover, every other Accused, who was residing out of station, had been summoned without compliance with the statutory procedural safeguards.

C. Impact

This Judgment is likely to have an extensive ripple effect on future defamation cases. Key impacts include:

Stricter Compliance with Section 202 CrPC: Magistrates must conscientiously enforce the mandatory inquiry or investigation to avoid unwarranted or frivolous defamation trials, especially when the accused live outside local jurisdiction.
Heightened Scrutiny for Non-editors: Editorial directors and managers will not be automatically considered legally responsible for defamatory news unless a complainant demonstrates specific involvement in the content selection or publication process.
Balanced Media Freedom: While defending the sacrosanct nature of free speech, the Court also underscored that damaging reputations must be taken seriously and cannot be excused by blanket arguments of press freedom.
Enhanced Diligence of Media Houses: News outlets are indirectly cautioned to adopt stronger editorial practices ensuring veracity and clarity, especially on subjects that could adversely affect an individual or entity’s reputation.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Several legal concepts in this Judgment can be intricate. Below is a simplified explanation:

Defamation (IPC Sections 499 & 500): Defamation requires making or publishing an imputation that lowers someone’s moral or intellectual character in the eyes of others. A complaint must show that the accused intended, or knew, that the imputation would harm the person’s reputation.
Section 202 CrPC “Mandatory Inquiry”: If the accused does not live in the Magistrate’s local area, the Magistrate must either personally investigate or order a police investigation before issuing summons. This is to prevent distant accused parties from being harassed through baseless legal action.
Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867: Under Section 7 of this Act, the person named as “Editor” carries a legal presumption of responsibility for content published. Others (e.g., Editorial Directors, owners) are not automatically liable unless specific proof is furnished regarding their role in the publication.

5. Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Jaideep Bose v. M/s Bid and Hammer Auctioneers Private Limited (2025 INSC 241) underscores the criticality of procedural compliance with Section 202 CrPC whenever an accused resides outside the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction. It affirms that blanket allegations without concrete evidence of role or intent cannot support defamation proceedings against individuals, particularly when they are not the named Editor under the Press Act.

The broader legal significance of this decision is its contribution to the jurisprudence on freedom of speech vis-à-vis reputational rights. While upholding the right to free press, the Supreme Court has reiterated that the media must ensure its reporting is based on rigorous verification, especially in matters potentially harming a party’s reputation. Above all, this Judgment powerfully reinforces that procedural safeguards, such as the mandatory inquiry under Section 202 CrPC, are paramount in preventing frivolous litigations and ensuring just outcomes in defamation cases.

Hence, going forward, complainants must present specific and robust evidence demonstrating the particular role of each accused, while courts are reminded that an inquiry under Section 202 CrPC is not merely advisable — it is required by law, thereby minimizing potential abuses of the criminal defamation process.

Mandatory Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC for Out-of-Jurisdiction Accused in Defamation Cases