Authority: High Court at Calcutta

Order Date: 28 August 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioner Nikhil Ruia filed a criminal revisional application (CRR 3615 of 2022) against the State of West Bengal & Anr., represented by LGW Limited (owner of the land) and its developer MKHS Realty LLP.
  • Background: On 5 December 2014 LGW Limited entered into six development agreements with M/S MHKS Realty Limited for the “Pyramid‑Energy” project in Rajarhat (17 towers). On 9 November 2015 the petitioner entered into an agreement for sale with LGW Limited and the developer for flat No 7E, Tower 7, 7th floor. The agreement stipulated possession by 2017, extendable by six months.
  • Allegations: The petitioner alleged that the developer failed to commence or complete construction, that the project office was removed, and that advance payments made on several dates were not refunded. He lodged a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C on 2 August 2021 against LGW Limited and the developer for offences under Sections 420, 406, 120B, 34 IPC. In retaliation, LGW Limited filed a criminal complaint under Sections 500/501 IPC (defamation) against the petitioner, alleging that the petitioner’s complaint contained derogatory statements that harmed the company’s reputation.
  • Procedural History: The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 13th Court, Calcutta, took cognizance of the defamation complaint, issued summons, and fixed dates for S/A (7 September 2021) and examination (3 February 2022). The petitioner sought a stay of proceedings; the opposite party obtained interim stays repeatedly. The opposite party also filed a revisional application (C.R. no. 1877 of 2021) under Section 482 Cr.P.C, which was rejected by the Special Judge, NDPS Court, on 27 August 2025, affirming the magistrate’s order. The petitioner then filed the present revisional application seeking quash of the defamation proceeding.
  • Legal Submissions: The petitioner argued that the defamation complaint was a ploy to evade the criminal complaint against the developer, that the statements were made in good faith to protect his interests, and cited several Supreme Court and High Court precedents (e.g., Shahed Kamal v. A. Surti Developers, Rubi Adhikari Sehgal v. Yashpal Joshi, Iveco Magirus v. Nirmal Kishore Bhartiya) establishing that the exceptions under Section 499 IPC apply when the imputation is made in good faith for protection of interests or public good.
  • Opposite Party’s Contentions: LGW Limited contended that the petitioner’s complaint was false, that the agreement was signed only by the developer, that LGW Limited received no money from the petitioner, and that the petitioner’s statements were defamatory, causing loss of reputation and goodwill.
  • Court’s Analysis: The Court examined the factual matrix, the statutory provisions of Section 499 IPC and its nine exceptions, and the cited precedents. It observed that the petitioner’s allegations related to a civil breach of contract and that the statements were made to protect his own interest as a home‑buyer. The Court held that the magistrate had failed to consider whether any exception under Section 499 applied and that, in view of the Supreme Court’s guidance, the complaint did not disclose a prima facie case of defamation. Continuing the proceeding would amount to an abuse of process.

Final Outcome

  • The criminal revisional application is allowed. The proceeding pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 13th Court, Calcutta, under Sections 500/501 IPC is hereby quashed.
  • All other connected applications, if any, are disposed of.
  • Urgent photostat certified copies of this order shall be supplied to the parties upon compliance with necessary formalities.

Topics: Defamation, Real Estate Dispute