Relying on Apex Court’s Surinder Mohan Vikal decision, Delhi High Court held that if any offence is made out in a complaint under Section 500 IPC for defamation, Section 468(2) Cr.P.C. is attracted and cognizance of offence should be taken within a period of three years from the date of occurrence.
Ms.Romy Khanna Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) on 4 Jul 2011
Citations : [2011 DLT 182 221], [2012 CRICC 1 85], [2011 RCR CRIMINAL 4 735], [2011 SCC ONLINE DEL 2664], [2011 RCR CRI 4 735]
Other Sources :
Shades of Knife
Curated, Reproduced from main.sci.gov.in, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in or any other Government websites such as Gazettes and repositories of Government Orders and Commented in accordance with Section 52(1)(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) and any other applicable public disclosure laws/provisions in India and in various other countries.
I neither have control to remove copies of this document(s) that may be available on websites of High Courts or Supreme Court of India or any of the many other sites, law journal or reporters which carry the same judgment in entire form, nor I can remove references/links to this document(s) from the results of Search Engines such as Google.com.
Read more gyan here.
Though, I can remove content from my site, on request for any parties to a case, even though, I am not legally obligated to do so, except for express bar from a Competent Court.
Om Shanthi !!!
Oh, by the way, my competent Legal team delivers time-bound legal reliefs to victims of false family and matrimonial cases at
AnaghaLegalReliefs.in !!! (work-in-progress)
We are on social media too.
Just google for: Anagha Legal Reliefs