1
40 CT CASES / 5373/2024 RAJAT SHARMA Vs. RAGINI NAYAK /0 (Greater
Kailash)
02.02.2026
Hybrid Hearing
Undersigned is also working as Link MM for today.
Present: Ms. Kanika Vohra, Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
Complainant is present through VC.
Order at 4:00PM. Digitally signed by
DEVANSHI DEVANSHI JANMEJA
JANMEJA Date: 2026.02.02
05:32:29 +0530
( DEVANSHI JANMEJA)
JMFC-04/(SE)/Saket Court
Delhi/02.02.2026
At 4:00PM
Present: Ms. Kanika Vohra, Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
1. The complainant, Rajat Sharma (hereinafter as the complainant) has
approached this court seeking summoning of Ragini Nayak (accused
no.1), Pawan Khera (accused no.2) and Jairam Ramesh (accused no.3)
(hereinafter referred to as the accused persons) upon allegations of
forgery, making false document and, defamation of the complainant,
allegedly committed by the accused persons.
2. It is the case of the complainant that by way of Press Conferences, media
reports, social media etc., the accused persons have made false and
defamatory statements against him i.e. that he used derogatory and
abusive language i.e uttered the word ‘ bahin***d’ (herein after referred to
as the invective) against accused No.1 i.e a female spokesperson of
Congress Party during a Live debate on television . Further, it is alleged
that accused persons in order to buttress this false and vexatious
allegation, uploaded a modified and tampered video with inserted text as
containing the aforesaid invective as caption which was not originally
Digitally signed
by DEVANSHI
DEVANSHI JANMEJA
JANMEJA Date:
2026.02.02
05:32:37 +0530
2
part of the live telecast imputing the same to have been said by the
complainant to accused No 1 thus committed forgery of the original video
and created and false document , which was then used to injure
Complainant’s reputation.
3. It is submitted that accused No. 2 and 3 retweeted the per se defamatory,
forged and manipulated content which was tweeted firstly by accused
No.1 despite knowing the same to be dishonest. Further it is submitted that
since these tweets by the accused persons were made through social media
websites and press conferences, it caused millions of viewers to believe
that the manipulated video was the original content which led to thousands
of social media users leaving negative comments regarding the
complainant on basis of the malicious allegations made by the accused
[Link] complainant alleges that the aforementioned false imputations
have been knowingly made by the accused persons for the sole purpose of
gaining political mileage at the cost of causing irreversible damage to the
reputation of the complainant. These acts of malicious, false and baseless
allegations by the accused persons are part of an orchestrated malafide
design for ulterior political motives of the accused persons.
4. Complainant led pre summoing evidence in support of his complaint and
examined himself on oath as CW1. During his deposition he apprised the
court that he had been in the profession of journalism and media and 40
years, has been awarded a Padma Bhushan for his work therein. He
deposed that on 04.06.2024, he was hosting a show on his channel India
TV on the counting of election result , and during the show he was
praising Congress Party by stating that even if Congress Party gets 90
seats, it will be considered a victory for them and if BJP gets 290 seats it
Digitally
signed by
DEVANSHI
DEVANSHI JANMEJA
JANMEJA Date:
2026.02.02
05:32:46
+0530
3
might be considered a defeat for them. Accused No.1 Ragini Nayak
however twisted complainant’s statement and said that complainant was
making a statement against Congress party. To this the complainant
responded that he does not wish to argue with her however clarified that
he spoke of congress party’s victory only. He deposed that nearly
67,000,000 people were watching the live telecast of this incident and no
one raised any objection or complaint of any abusive language used by the
complainant on the show. On 10th of June 2024, at 11:06 PM at night,
accused Ragini Nayak posted a tweet on X wherein she stated that
complainant had abused her and along with the said tweet, she posted the
video of this incident and superimposed upon it the invective allegedly
uttered by complainant implying that the same was part of the original live
telecast. Accused No.2 Pawan Khera, then retweeted Ragini Nayak’s tweet
at about 11:17 PM on 10th of June 2024 stating that it is condemnable that
complainant has used abusive language against a lady politician. On 11 th
of June 2024 at around 8 AM, accused No 3 Jairam Ramesh retweeted the
false and fabricated tweet of Ragini Nayak stating that complainant may
have his own political proclivities however he should not have abused the
lady congress spokesperson, and should issue an unconditional apology to
her. Complainant deposed that the same was very shocking for him as he
had never used any abusive language on the show and he could clearly see
through Ragini Nayak’s lie as she stated on Twitter that she had obtained
the video posted with her tweet after obtaining raw footage from India TV
as there is no such thing as a raw footage for a live show. She had rather
superimposed text on the footage telecasted by India TV to create a false
document. Later complainant learnt that accused No.1 & 2 had scheduled
a press conference on this issue at 12 noon on 11 th of June 2024. His legal
team immediately sent a letter to all the accused persons stating that the
allegations they have levelled against him are false, baseless and
Digitally signed
by DEVANSHI
JANMEJA
DEVANSHI
Date:
JANMEJA 2026.02.02
05:32:50
+0530
4
defamatory and they shall be compounding on their statement if they
repeat the same in the press conference. Thereafter the accused persons
announced the cancellation of the press conference scheduled for 12 noon
on account of some technical difficulty. Accused No.1 & 2 went to PS
Tughlak Road and filed complaint against the complainant. Thereafter on
11th of June 2024, at 5 PM Ragini Nayak did the press conference and
repeated the aforesaid false allegations. Ragini Nayak then posted the
footage of the press conference on Twitter along with copies of her
complaint repeating the allegations and stating that complainant Rajat
Sharma has now threatened her. Thereafter people started commenting on
the same with denigrating words against the Complainant. Thereafter his
friends Surya Prakash Khatri and Sudhanshu Mittal contacted him and
asked him how he could use such objectionable words in public as the text
that was superimposed on the video posted by Jairam Ramesh, Pawan
Khera and Ragini Nayak made it seem that he had actually uttered that
invective. He deposed that this incident caused him a lot of mental agony
and trauma. Thereafter complainant approached the Hon’ble High Court
of Delhi and filed civil suit for mandatory injunction and damages
wherein order was passed in his favour in CSOS number 495/2024 dated
14 06 2024 and accused persons were directed to be remove the
defamatory posts .
5. The complainant has relied upon the following documents in the pre-
summoning evidence:-
(a) The documents pertaining to his profession as Mark A
(b) Copy of National Award as Mark B.
(c) The screenshot of subscribers of the channel as Mark C
(d) The four minute video clip containing the live telecast of the incident
is exhibited as Ex. CW1/A.
(e) True translated transcript of the aforementioned incident in Hindi is
now marked as Mark D.
Digitally signed
by DEVANSHI
DEVANSHI JANMEJA
JANMEJA Date: 2026.02.02
05:32:54 +0530
5
(f) The tweet dated 10.06.2024 as Ex. CW 1/C.
(g) Original live telecast as of 04.06.2024 as Ex. CW1/D.
(h) The tweet dated 11.06.2024 as Ex. CW 1/E.
(i) Letter to accused persons dated 11.06.2024 as Ex. CW1/F.
(j) abovesaid letter on twitter as Ex. CW1/G.
(k) CD containing the video recording of the press conference as Ex.
CW1/H
(l) true translated transcript as Ex. CW1/J (Colly) (approximately 7
pages).
(m) Certificate under Section 65 B of Evidence Act as Ex. CW1/B.
6. Complainant examined one Surya Prakash Khatri a CW2 who deposed on
similar lines as complainant and stated that he had no doubt that the
allegations made by the accused persons had caused immense damage to
the reputation of complainant.
7. Complainant further examined one Sudhanshu Mittal a CW3 who was a
participant on the live program hosted by India TV on 4th of June 2024
when the incident alleged by the accused persons took place. He deposed
that there was nothing objectionable said by complainant said during this
interaction and that no abusive language, or angry offensive statement was
made by the complainant. He further deposed that he did not think
anybody else had heard any objectionable utterance as otherwise after the
show the same would have been discussed. After the allegations of
accused persons went viral on 11th of June 2024, he deposed that he was
inundated with calls and messages from all over expressing shock that
complainant Rajat Sharma could abuse a woman panellist. He further
deposed that it took him a great effort to explain to people that
complainant Rajat Sharma was completely innocent and had been
maliciously accused of abusing Ms Ragini Nayak in order to damage his
reputation.
Digitally
signed by
DEVANSHI
DEVANSHI JANMEJA
JANMEJA Date:
2026.02.02
05:32:57
+0530
6
8. All the witnesses of the complainant deposed that they have heard/seen
the accused persons making defamatory statements against the
complainant and same has consequenced in damage to the reputation of
the complainant.
9. After conclusion of pre-summoning evidence, in order to determine
whether offence of forgery had been made out, report under section 202
CRPC was sought from the SHO PS GK to get the allegedly forged
documents (videos posted by accused persons) examined by FSL for the
purpose of determining whether or not there were sufficient grounds to
proceed against the accused persons . The FSL examination reports stated
that there appeared to be visible alteration in the videos uploaded by
accused persons as the same had presence of titles and captions which
indicates the video being post production video file.
10. Before commencing the discussion on whether sufficient prima-facie
material exists for summoning of the accused persons, it becomes
imperative to set-out briefly the legal benchmark that is to be satisfied for
summoning of an accused for an offence of defamation under section 499
of the IPC and offence of forgery under section 463,469,471 IPC.
11. Basic ingredients of offence under section 499 i.e. defamation that need to
be established are as follows :
(i) Making or publishing any imputation concerning any person;
(ii) Such imputation must have been made by words either spoken or
intended to be read or by signs or by visible representations;
Digitally
signed by
DEVANSHI
DEVANSHI JANMEJA
JANMEJA Date:
2026.02.02
05:33:01
+0530
7
(iii) The said imputation must have been made with the intention to
harm or with the knowledge or having reason to believe that it will
harm the reputation of the person concerned.
12. Basic ingredients of offence under section forgery, making of false
document and it’s misuse that need to be established are as follows :
the making of a false document or part of it and such making should be
with such intention
(a) to cause damage or injury to (i) the public, or (ii) any person; or
(b) to support any claim or title; or
(c) to cause any person to part with property; or
(d) to cause any person to enter into an express or implied contract;
or
(e) to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed.
13. Reference is also made to Section 469 of IPC which deals with forgery for
the purpose of harming reputation. It states that whoever commits forgery,
intending that the document or electronic record forged shall harm the
reputation of any party, or knowing that it is likely to be used for that
purpose, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.
14. Further Section 471 IPC defines the offence and punishment. Using as
genuine a forged document or electronic record as
“Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any
document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to
believe to be a forged document or electronic record, shall be
punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document
or electronic record.”
Digitally
signed by
DEVANSHI
DEVANSHI JANMEJA
JANMEJA Date:
2026.02.02
05:33:05
+0530
8
15. During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for Complainant submitted
that aforesaid defamatory statements had been made orally and through
electronic media/print media/social media handles of the accused persons
and despite legal notice issued to accused persons to further prevent issue
of such slander, accused persons failed to adhere to the requests. Ld.
Counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant had filed a
petition before Hon’ble High Court of Delhi titled as Rajat Sharma vs X
Corp and others bearing case no. CS(OS) 495/2024, seeking interim
injunction against the accused persons to take down/delete the defamatory
publications made the accused persons on social media platform, wherein
vide order dated 14th of June 2024 , Hon’ble High Court held that it was
prima facie evident from the video of the impugned TV debate, that
Complainant had barely intervened for a few seconds and no abusive
language was used against Ragini Nayak, and had directed accused
persons to take down their social media posts regarding the incident from
public domain. He has further submitted that offence of forgery and
creation of false document, and use thereof for purpose of defaming
Complainant is also established since among other evidence led by
complainant, FSL authorities have also stated in their report that there is
super imposition of titles and captions in the videos posted by the accused
persons. It is therefore submitted that the aforesaid facts and
circumstances clearly establish that the accused persons have made and
published highly damaging allegations against the complainant with the
intent to harm and knowing that such imputations shall tarnish and cause
irrepairable harm to the decades long built reputation of the complainant.
DEVANSHI
JANMEJA
Digitally signed by
DEVANSHI
JANMEJA
Date: 2026.02.02
05:33:10 +0530
9
16. Having heard the submissions and having carefully perused the record, I
shall now proceed to decide upon the question of summoning on its
merits.
17. As regard the scope of scrutiny permissible at the stage of summoning,
one may turn to Smt. Nagawwa vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and
others, AIR 1976 Supreme Court 1947, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court
held as under :
“At the stage of issuing process the Magistrate is mainly
concerned with the allegations made in the complaint or the
evidence led in support of the same and he is only to be prima
facie satisfied whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding
against the accused. It is not the province of the Magistrate to
enter into a detailed discussion of the merits or de-merits of the
case nor can the High Court go into this matter in its revisional
jurisdiction which is a very limited one. The scope of the inquiry
under Section 202 is extremely limited – only to the ascertainment
of the truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint
– (I) on the materials placed by the complainant before the court;
(ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie
case for issue of process has been made out; and (iii) for deciding
the question purely from the point of view of the complainant
without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may
have.”
18. Therefore , the consideration at this stage is whether there exists sufficient
grounds to summon them or not (section 204 of The Code of Criminal
Procedure).
19. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to discuss the law on Defamation.
The intrinsic facet of “Defamation” is harm to “reputation” or lowering
the estimation of a person in public domain. This makes it pertinent to
understand what constitutes “reputation”. The right to reputation in its
vital aspect is not concerned with fame or distinction. It has regard, not to
Digitally
signed by
DEVANSHI
DEVANSHI JANMEJA
JANMEJA Date:
2026.02.02
05:33:15
+0530
10
intellectual or other special acquirements, but to repute which is slowly
built up by integrity, honourable conduct, and right living. One’s good
name is therefore, as truly the product of one’s efforts as any physical
possession; indeed, it alone gives the value as source of happiness, to
material possessions. It is, therefore, reputation alone that is vulnerable;
character needs no adventitious support. The right to reputation has been
recognized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as an integral part of the right
to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, in the case of Umesh Kumar
vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. (2013) 10 SCC 591. While
upholding the constitutional validity of criminal defamation in the case of
Subramanian Swamy vs. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 221, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court extensively discussed the significance of reputation as a
cherished right. It held that the right to freedom of speech and expression
under Article 19(1)(a) is not absolute and cannot be exercised to crucify
the reputation of another. A balance must be struck between the two
fundamental rights. In essence, any statement which has a tendency to
injure the reputation of the person or lower him in the estimation of
members of the society results in loss of reputation and is defamatory.
20. Now coming back to the question of summoning, the allegations referred
above are, if seen in the entire context of the things and evidence of the
complainant, prima facie seems to be defamatory if they do not fall within
any of the statutory defences prescribed by law itself as well as the other
legal requirements, and appear to be intending to harm the reputation of
the complainant. The entire burden will be on the accused persons to plead
and prove the defence on which they may rely upon, at appropriate stage.
The complainant through his own testimony as CW-1 (at the stage of pre-
summoning evidence) and through the testimony of other complainant
witnesses, has prima facie demonstrated that the accused persons through
Digitally
signed by
DEVANSHI
DEVANSHI JANMEJA
JANMEJA Date:
2026.02.02
05:33:22
+0530
11
a joint press conference and separately through their social media handles,
have made publications that Complainant hurled an objectionable
invective against the Accused No.1 who happens to be a lady
spokesperson of Congress Party . The natural corollary of which was that
Complainant was perceived by his friends, acquiantances and public at
large to be a male chauvinist, misogynist and someone irreverent to
women. The backlash he faced via comments and posts on social media
platforms where he was called denigrating names, prima facie establishes
that his reputation took a falling. The video recording of press conference
and tweets made on X placed on record by complaint wherein the accused
persons can be heard imputing aforementioned defamatory statements
against the complainant. Upon specific query about pendency of
complaint made by accused No.1 at PS Tughlaq Road, Ld. counsel had
apprised the court that the same was closed by concerned police officials
as no evidence was found against the complainant.
21. At this stage, i.e. at the stage of issue of process, the Court cannot be
expected to hold a mini trial or to go in the merits of the mater in detail or
even to examine the evidence on the scale of 'beyond reasonable doubts',
the evidence needs only a prima facie examination. In the matter at hand,
without getting into the merits of the certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence
Act of the complainant , in view of the testimonies of the complainant
witnesses (CW-2 and CW-3, who have both deposed on oath that they
have heard/seen the accused persons making defamatory allegations
against the complainant, because of which the image of the complainant
got lowered in their eyes and the eyes of the public at large), the factum of
the aforesaid utterances/defamatory statements gets prima facie
established against the accused persons.
Digitally
signed by
DEVANSHI
DEVANSHI JANMEJA
JANMEJA Date:
2026.02.02
05:33:25
+0530
12
22. Further, in the considered opinion of this court, offence of forgery and
creation of false document, and use thereof for purpose of defaming
Complainant is also established since Complainant has established that the
raw footage of the incident was never given to the accused persons ,
therefore the video posted by them on X has been created by recording of
the live or otherwise telecasted footage of the show by India TV .
Complainant has sufficiently also established that accused persons had
obtained the telecasted footage of the TV show on 04.06.2024 and
superimposed the invective as a caption, stating through an explanatory
text along with, that the same was uttered by the complainant against her.
23. At this juncture, the aspect of common intention also needs to be
discussed. Whereas the three accused persons can be seen concertedly
posting the tweet qua the invective uttered by Complainant within a span
of few hours from each ,wherein defamatory statements against the
complainant were made, their common intention to malign the image of
the complainant and to defame him can be prima facie fathomed. It cannot
be forgotten that common intention is a matter of inference, to be gathered
from the totality of facts and circumstances surrounding the crime. In the
matter at hand, having regard to all the material placed on record by the
complainant, it prima facie appears that the accused persons have acted in
unison to tarnish the image of the complainant by projecting that the
complainant had uttered the invective against Accused No. 1. It appears
that the accused persons by their spoken and publications made on X ,
which were intended to be read, have made defamatory imputations
against the complainant, knowing and intending to harm the reputation of
the complainant. Needless to say, nothing in this order shall tantamount to
an expression on the final merits of this case, as the same is matter of trial.
Digitally
signed by
DEVANSHI
DEVANSHI JANMEJA
JANMEJA Date:
2026.02.02
05:33:29
+0530
13
24. Ergo, in view of the aforesaid discussion there exists sufficient grounds to
summon the accused persons Ragini Nayak, Pawan Khera and Jai Ram
Ramesh u/s 465, 469, 471, 499, 500 IPC on 27.07.026 Accordingly, the
said three accused persons be summoned, upon filing of PF and RC, as per
rules . Copy of the complaint be sent along with process.
Digitally signed by
DEVANSHI DEVANSHI JANMEJA
JANMEJA Date: 2026.02.02
05:33:34 +0530
(DEVANSHI JANMEJA)
JMFC-04/(SE)/Saket Court
Delhi/02.02.2026