Delhi Court Dismisses Godfrey Phillips Directors' Defamation Case Against Samir Modi

A Delhi Court on Monday quashed a defamation case filed by Godfrey Phillips India Ltd.'s directors Lalit Bhasin, Atul Gupta, and Nirmala Bagri against Samir Modi, according to a judgement from Saket Courts.

The case was regarding an article published in 'The Economic Times' that allegedly included statements from Samir Modi in connection to the assault on him during a Godfrey Phillips board meeting last year amid disputes involving the Modi family business.

Samir Modi, son of Bina Modi, managing director of the firm, had accused his mother, her personal security officer, and directors of Godfrey Phillips of inflicting "grievous hurt" in a First Information Report (FIR) with the Delhi Police.

The police had confirmed the assault but failed to produce sufficient evidence regarding the same.

The court found no merit in the defamation charges under Sections 499/500 IPC.

The complainants had alleged that Modi had made a "defamatory statement with criminal intent to defame and intimidate" as well as damage their reputations.

The statement was regarding excerpts from an interview with Modi where he had allegedly stated the directors "consented to/orchestrated a premeditated attack against him with the intention to kill him” and “the other present board members were consenting parties to this assault”.

The court noted that the impugned article largely consists of extracts from a complaint made by the respondent to the police authorities.

In his order, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Vivek Beniwal observed, “To treat such an act of the lodging of a police complaint or its possible reporting as defamatory would set a dangerous precedent, wherein any person approaching lawful authorities for legitimate remedies could potentially be subjected to criminal prosecution for defamation if the complaint is later made public.”

He further stated, “This would amount to an abuse of process of law and would have a chilling effect on a person's right to seek legal recourse and protection under the law.”

“From a plain reading of the impugned statement, even assuming to have been made, they do not appear to be defamatory in nature,” the court added, emphasising that the statements seemed to have been made in an explanatory and precautionary manner.

“There is no prima facie evidence of any statement that could be categorically termed as demeaning, malicious, or defamatory in law,” it added, dismissing the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C.