Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.): ----S. 561-A—Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 19—Freedom of Speech—Quashing of Criminal Proceedings—Scope and Limitations. The applicant, a journalist and YouTube content creator, uploaded a video that allegedly defamed Axact (Pvt.) Ltd. A private complaint was filed under Sections 499, 500, 502-A, and 505, P.P.C. before the trial court, which took cognizance. The applicant sought quashing of the proceedings under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. The High Court held: Scope of Section 561-A, Cr.P.C.: While a High Court should not ordinarily exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. unless alternate remedies under Sections 249-A or 265-K, Cr.P.C. are exhausted, it may do so in exceptional cases to prevent abuse of court process or secure the ends of justice. Freedom of Speech (Article 19, Constitution of Pakistan, 1973): Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of a free society. Courts are duty-bound to protect this right against unwarranted encroachments. Restrictions on free speech must meet specific constitutional thresholds: undermining the glory of Islam, national security, public order, morality, contempt of court, or incitement to offense. Prima Facie Deficiency in Complaint: The complaint failed to establish how the video content defamed Axact or caused any damage. Additionally: No evidence of authorization from Axact’s board or general body to initiate criminal proceedings. The complainants were two unidentified employees of a subsidiary company without clear standing. The complaint appeared vague and lacked substantive evidence of harm. Unnecessary Litigation: Courts must prevent misuse of legal processes, especially where fundamental rights, such as freedom of speech, are at stake. The court observed that the complaint appeared more as a conflict of egos than a genuine criminal grievance and emphasized resolving such disputes through mediation instead of criminal proceedings. Disposition: Proceedings arising from the complaint were quashed under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. ----Cited Law: Criminal Procedure Code, Sections 561-A, 249-A, 265-K Pakistan Penal Code, Sections 499, 500, 502-A, 505 Constitution of Pakistan, Article 19 ----Cited Cases: FIA v. Syed Hamad Ali Shah (C.P. 1257 of 2020) Muhammad Farooq v. Ahmed Nawaz Jagirani (PLD 2016 SC 55)

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- --- S. 500 read with S. 499-Defamation-Impugned imputation made in application made to Chairman Union Committee-No evidence suggesting or indicating imputations being made with intent to harm complainant's reputation or that accused had reasons to believe such imputations resulting in harming com plainant's reputation-Imputations not being per se defamatory, no case of defamation made out. Imputations made in respect of any person amount to defamation for the purposes of section 499, P. P. C. only if such imputations are published and the person publishing the same intends to harm or has reasons to believe that such imputations will harm the reputations of the person in respect of whom the imputations are made and published, there is no evidence in this case to suggest or indicate that the imputation made by respondent No. I in the application to the Chairman of the Union Committee were made by the respondent with intent to harm the reputation of the petitioner or that the said respondent had reason to believe that the same would harm the reputation of the petitioner. If the imputations had been per se defamatory, such as to attribute dishonest, improper or immoral conduct to the petitioner, or any other action which plainly would have the tendency to lower him in the estimation of his relations, friends and acquaintances, it could have been reasonably presumed that the petitioner either bad the intention or at least had the knowledge or reasons to believe that such imputation would harm the reputation of the petitioner, but me imputations arc not such as can be considered to be per se defamatory. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- --- S. 500 read with S. 499, Explanation 4-Defamation-That complainant had been paid Rs. 1,000 for giving hand of his daughter in marriage-Such imputation, held, not per se defamatory so as to lower complainant in estimation of others. The imputation that the petitioner had been paid Rs. 1,000 for the hand of his daughter in marriage is not an imputation which either per se could be considered as defamatory or could have the effect of lowering the petitioner in the estimation of his friends and relations, as it is not uncommon in certain communities and classes of people to ask for bride money. Furthermore, neither the petitioner himself nor any other witness cited by him has stated that as a result of the above imputations either the reputation of the petitioner had been harmed or that he had been lowered in the estimation of others. Explanation 4 to section 499, P. P. C. provides that no imputation is said to harm a person's reputation, unless the imputation, directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of the person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or the credit of that person. The bald allegation by the petitioner that the imputations published against him by respondent No. 1 are defamatory cannot be considered to be enough for reaching the conclusion that they are in fact defamatory or that the character of the petitioner has been injured by such imputations or he has been lowered by such imputation in the estimation of others. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -- S. 500 read with S. 499, Exception 8---Defamation--Complaint to person in authority-Imputations contained in application made to Chairman Union Committee under Conciliation Courts Ordinance, 1961-Made to person having lawful authority in matter, hence, held, protected under Exception 8 to S. 499. The imputations were contained in an application made to the Chairman of the Union Committee, with the request that action be taken against the petitioner and his companions for an offence under section 323/34, P. P. C. Since the Chairman was the person to whom such applications are required to be made under the Conciliation Courts Ordinance, 1961, he undoubtedly is a person who had lawful authority over the petitioner with respect to the accusation of assault and beating. In view of these circumstances, the application made by respondent No. I and bearing the endorsement of respondent No. 2, who was then a member of the Union Committee concerned, would be protected under the 8th Exception to section 499, P. P. C.