HEADNOTE
Case Title: Harkirat Singh Sodhi v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
Court: Delhi High Court
Bench: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Date of Judgment: 20 January 2026
Case Numbers: CRL.M.C. 4225/2018 and CRL.M.C. 5891/2019
Laws/Sections Involved:
Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973;
Sections 499 and 500, Indian Penal Code, 1860
Keywords: criminal defamation, quashing proceedings, pleadings privilege, good faith exception, Section 499 IPC, abuse of process, family property dispute
Summary
The Delhi High Court quashed criminal defamation proceedings initiated against Harkirat Singh Sodhi by his brother-in-law, holding that allegations made in pleadings and police complaints arising from an ongoing family property dispute did not constitute defamation under Sections 499/500 IPC. The Court ruled that statements made in judicial proceedings to protect one’s legal interests enjoy qualified privilege and, unless shown to be malicious or published to third parties with intent to harm reputation, cannot attract criminal liability. It further held that an anonymous letter allegedly circulated in a Residents Welfare Association could not be attributed to the petitioner in the absence of prima facie evidence of authorship or publication. Emphasising that criminal defamation cannot be used as a pressure tactic in civil disputes, the Court concluded that continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law.
Court’s decision
In a detailed and authoritative judgment, the Delhi High Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash a criminal defamation complaint and summoning orders issued against Harkirat Singh Sodhi. The Court held that even if all allegations in the complaint were accepted at face value, no offence of defamation under Sections 499 and 500 IPC was made out. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna ruled that the criminal proceedings were a clear abuse of the process of law, arising out of a long-standing and acrimonious family dispute over inheritance and property, and could not be allowed to continue.
Background and factual matrix
The dispute traces its origins to the death of Sardarni Surinder Kaur Sodhi in December 2013, after which serious disagreements arose within the family regarding succession to her estate, particularly a prime residential property at Golf Links, New Delhi. Multiple civil and testamentary proceedings followed.
Two rival probate petitions came to be filed before the Delhi High Court. The petitioner, Harkirat Singh Sodhi, sought probate of a registered Will dated 13 January 1987 allegedly executed in his favour. On the other hand, his sister, Amita Gandoak (wife of the complainant Ravinder Singh Gandoak), propounded an unregistered handwritten Will dated 7 September 2004, claiming it revoked the earlier Will.
Amidst these proceedings, Ravinder Singh Gandoak filed a criminal complaint alleging that the petitioner had defamed him by making false allegations of forgery and dishonest conduct in (i) a police complaint, (ii) objections filed in testamentary proceedings, and (iii) an anonymous letter allegedly circulated within the local Residents Welfare Association.
Nature of the defamation allegations
The complainant relied on three categories of statements. First, a police complaint lodged by the petitioner alleging forgery of documents relating to family property. Second, pleadings filed by the petitioner in pending testamentary proceedings, wherein allegations were made regarding suspicious conduct and forgery in earlier civil litigation. Third, an unsigned and anonymous letter allegedly circulated in the Greater Kailash-I RWA, portraying the complainant and his family as habitual forgers.
On the basis of these allegations, the Magistrate issued summons under Sections 499 and 500 IPC, which were upheld in revision. This led the petitioner to approach the High Court seeking quashing of the complaint and summoning orders.
Key issues before the High Court
The central question before the Court was whether allegations made in judicial pleadings and complaints to lawful authorities, arising out of pending civil disputes, could form the basis of criminal defamation. The Court was also required to determine whether an anonymous letter, in the absence of proof of authorship or publication by the accused, could justify criminal prosecution.
Petitioner’s submissions
The petitioner argued that the impugned statements were either made in pleadings before courts or in complaints to authorities, both of which are protected under the exceptions to Section 499 IPC. It was contended that the statements were made in good faith to protect his legal interests in property disputes and were substantially based on judicial records, including findings in earlier civil litigation.
It was further submitted that the anonymous RWA letter could not be attributed to the petitioner by mere conjecture and that criminal defamation was being weaponised as a pressure tactic in an ongoing civil dispute.
Respondent’s stand
The complainant opposed the petitions, asserting that the allegations were reckless, malicious, and intended to tarnish his reputation in society. It was argued that the petitioner must stand trial to establish whether the statements were made in good faith and whether exceptions to Section 499 IPC applied. The complainant also relied on witness testimony suggesting circulation of the RWA letter.
Legal principles on defamation examined by the Court
The Court undertook an extensive survey of defamation jurisprudence. It reiterated that at the stage of issuing process, the Magistrate must assess whether there is sufficient ground to proceed, not whether the accused is guilty. However, where the material on record itself discloses a complete defence under the exceptions to Section 499 IPC, the High Court is empowered to quash proceedings.
Justice Bansal Krishna emphasised that allegations made in pleadings enjoy qualified privilege. A litigant is entitled to assert claims and defences which he believes to be true, without fear of criminal prosecution, unless express malice and publication to third parties is established.
Averments in pleadings are not defamation
The Court held that statements made in objections and pleadings in pending testamentary proceedings could not be construed as defamatory. Such averments are made for adjudication by the court and are not intended to lower the reputation of the opposite party in the eyes of the public.
The judgment makes a crucial observation that if every allegation in pleadings were scrutinised through the lens of defamation, it would have a chilling effect on access to justice and the right to fair adjudication.
Police complaints and good faith
With respect to the police complaint, the Court held that preferring an accusation in good faith to an authority having lawful jurisdiction squarely falls within the Eighth Exception to Section 499 IPC. Since a criminal case relating to alleged forgery was admittedly pending, it could not be said at this stage that the allegations were false or malicious.
Anonymous RWA letter and lack of publication
On the third limb of allegations, the Court found that there was not even prima facie evidence linking the petitioner to the anonymous letter. Mere suspicion based on the existence of disputes between the families was insufficient to attribute authorship.
The Court reiterated that “publication” is a sine qua non for defamation and requires communication of the defamatory imputation to third parties by the accused. In the absence of proof that the petitioner authored or circulated the letter, criminal prosecution could not be sustained.
Abuse of criminal process
The judgment strongly deprecated the misuse of criminal defamation as a tool to settle scores in civil disputes. The Court observed that the continuation of the proceedings would amount to harassment and abuse of process, especially when multiple civil and criminal litigations were already pending between the parties.
Conclusion
Allowing both petitions, the Delhi High Court quashed the criminal complaint, the summoning order, and the subsequent order framing notice. The Court categorically held that no offence of defamation was made out even if the complaint was taken at its highest.
Implications
This judgment is a significant reaffirmation of free and fearless litigation. It clarifies that criminal defamation cannot be invoked to muzzle parties from asserting their rights in court proceedings. The ruling will serve as a strong precedent against the growing tendency to criminalise civil disputes, particularly in family and property matters.
Also Read: Delhi High Court restrains enforcement of allegedly fabricated MOAs, cites cheque issuance mismatch