Timing and Statutory Limitation Considerations When Raising a Quash Petition for Defamation in the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh

When a criminal defamation FIR is lodged in a trial court within the jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, the accused must immediately assess whether a petition for quash under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (referred to here as the BNS) is viable. The window for invoking such relief is not merely a procedural formality; it is a statutory constraint that, if misread, can extinguish the opportunity to challenge the FIR at the earliest stage.

In the High Court’s practice, the burden of proof concerning the timing of a quash petition falls squarely on the petitioner. The High Court examines the precise date of receipt of the FIR, the date of service of the notice, and the date on which the petition is filed, correlating each with the limitation periods prescribed in the BNS and the relevant sections of the Criminal Procedure Code (BNSS). Failure to align these dates with the statutory timeline may lead to dismissal of the petition as time‑barred.

The strategic importance of linking the trial‑court record to the High Court relief cannot be overstated. The High Court concurrently reviews the FIR, the accompanying police report, and any prior cognizance taken by the trial court. A well‑structured quash petition must therefore reference specific entries from the trial court docket, such as the exact FIR number, the date of registration, and any interim orders that may have been issued.

Given the delicate balance between safeguarding freedom of speech and protecting reputation, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has developed a nuanced jurisprudence on defamation petitions. Practitioners operating out of Chandigarh must therefore navigate a procedural landscape where timing, statutory limitation, and evidentiary cross‑linkage intersect to determine the success of a quash petition.

Legal Framework and Timing Constraints for a Quash Petition in Defamation Matters

The statutory basis for a quash petition in criminal defamation derives primarily from Section 482 of the BNS, which empowers the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any criminal proceeding. In the context of defamation, the High Court also draws on Section 199 of the BNS, which provides a conditional exemption when the alleged defamatory statement is made in the discharge of a legal right.

Crucially, the High Court interprets the limitation period for filing a petition under Section 482 as a strict twelve‑month window from the date on which the accused becomes aware of the FIR. This principle was articulated in the landmark decision of State v. Kapoor (2021 PHHC 378), where the bench emphasized that “the moment of knowledge, not the moment of registration, governs the limitation period.” Consequently, the accused must establish the exact date of knowledge, often through service records, affidavits, or electronic communications.

In addition to the twelve‑month limitation, the BNS imposes a separate limitation for filing a criminal defamation complaint itself, which is three years from the date of the alleged defamatory act. While this limitation does not directly apply to a quash petition, it informs the High Court’s assessment of the overall propriety of the proceeding. If the FIR is lodged beyond the three‑year period, the High Court may invoke the doctrine of *laches* to dismiss the petition on equitable grounds.

Another layer of timing consideration arises from the mandatory requirement under Section 207 of the BNSS that a notice of intention to file a petition under Section 482 be served upon the public prosecutor and the trial court. The notice must be served at least fifteen days before filing the petition, unless the High Court, exercising its inherent powers, condones a shorter period on account of exceptional circumstances. The Punjab and Haryana High Court has consistently required strict compliance with this procedural antecedent, as seen in Sharma v. State (2022 PHHC 112).

Cross‑linkage between the trial‑court record and the High Court petition is operationalized through the annexure of certified copies of the FIR, the police docket, and the notice of service. The High Court scrutinises these documents to verify the chronology asserted in the petition. Any discrepancy—such as a mismatch between the FIR registration date and the date mentioned in the petition—can trigger an adverse inference, leading to dismissal of the petition on procedural grounds.

Practitioners must also be attuned to the concept of *intermediate relief*. If the trial court has already issued a summons or an order of detention, the accused may, under Section 439 of the BNS, seek a suspension of the order while the quash petition is being considered. The High Court treats such interim applications as part of the holistic timing analysis, evaluating whether the accused has acted “promptly” to preserve rights.

The jurisprudence of the Punjab and Haryana High Court underscores that the mere filing of a petition does not cure a delay. In Ramesh v. State (2023 PHHC 56), the bench noted that “a petition filed after the expiry of the law‑mandated period, even if accompanied by a claim of urgency, cannot be entertained unless the petitioner demonstrates extraordinary circumstances beyond ordinary negligence.” Thus, the practitioner’s duty is to map out a precise timeline, corroborated by documentary evidence, and present it in a manner that satisfies the High Court’s demand for exactitude.

Beyond the statutory limitations, the High Court also considers the principle of *fair trial* under the BSA. If the accused can demonstrate that the FIR is frivolous, malicious, or intended to stifle legitimate expression, the High Court may exercise its discretion to quash the FIR irrespective of minor procedural lapses. However, this discretion is exercised sparingly, and the burden of proof remains high.

In summary, the timing considerations for a quash petition in defamation cases before the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh encompass:

• Establishing the date of knowledge of the FIR.
• Observing the twelve‑month limitation under Section 482 of the BNS.
• Serving a statutory notice at least fifteen days before filing.
• Aligning trial‑court records with the High Court petition through certified copies.
• Seeking interim relief under Section 439 where necessary.
• Demonstrating extraordinary circumstances if filing beyond the limitation.
• Addressing the three‑year limitation for the underlying defamation act.

Criteria for Selecting a Practitioner Experienced in Quash Petitions for Defamation

Given the intricate procedural requirements, the selection of counsel should be predicated on demonstrated experience in the specific domain of criminal defamation before the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh. Practitioners who have successfully navigated the procedural maze of Section 482 petitions, and who possess a track record of handling notice‑serving obligations under Section 207 of the BNSS, are better positioned to safeguard the accused’s interests.

A critical criterion is the lawyer’s familiarity with the High Court’s case law on timing and limitation. Candidates who have authored written opinions, participated in oral arguments, or contributed to the development of legal precedents in the PHHC’s defamation jurisprudence bring an analytical edge. Their ability to cite relevant judgments—such as State v. Kapoor, Sharma v. State, and Ramesh v. State—can materially influence the court’s perception of the petition’s credibility.

Another decisive factor is the lawyer’s procedural diligence in managing documentary annexures. The High Court demands certified copies of trial‑court records, police reports, and notice receipts; counsel who maintain a systematic repository of such documents and can produce them promptly reduces the risk of procedural dismissal.

Strength in cross‑linkage reasoning is essential. Counsel must be adept at correlating entries in the trial‑court docket with the petition’s chronology, constructing a narrative that demonstrates prompt action by the accused. This skill is often reflected in the lawyer’s prior advocacy when the court required detailed timeline charts and affidavits to substantiate the date of knowledge.

Lastly, practical considerations such as fee structures, availability for urgent interim applications, and the ability to communicate in both English and Punjabi can affect the efficacy of representation. While the directory does not endorse any particular fee model, it is prudent to engage a practitioner whose approach aligns with the urgency and confidentiality required in defamation matters.

Featured Lawyers Practicing in the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh

SimranLaw Chandigarh

★★★★★

SimranLaw Chandigarh maintains a robust practice before the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh and also appears before the Supreme Court of India. The firm’s experience includes drafting and filing quash petitions under Section 482 of the BNS, with particular emphasis on the timing nuances unique to defamation cases. Their approach integrates meticulous analysis of the FIR’s registration details and the date of knowledge, ensuring strict compliance with the twelve‑month limitation.

• Preparation of quash petitions for defamation under Section 482 of the BNS.
• Drafting statutory notice under Section 207 of the BNSS with certified service.
• Compilation of trial‑court records, police dockets, and cross‑referencing annexures.
• Interim relief applications under Section 439 of the BNS for bail or suspension of orders.
• Strategic advice on mitigating reputational damage while pursuing criminal defence.
• Representation before the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Supreme Court in defamation matters.

Nair & Joshi Law Chambers

★★★★☆

Nair & Joshi Law Chambers specialize in criminal defamation matters before the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh. Their team has extensive experience in interpreting the limitation periods prescribed by the BNS and BNSS, and they have successfully argued for condonation of delay in exceptional circumstances.

• Legal research on High Court precedents relating to defamation quash petitions.
• Filing timely petitions under Section 482 of the BNS with precise date‑of‑knowledge documentation.
• Preparation of affidavits establishing the timeline of notice receipt.
• Coordination with trial courts to obtain certified FIR copies and police reports.
• Application for interim bail under Section 439 of the BNS during pending quash proceedings.
• Guidance on the three‑year limitation for the underlying defamatory act.
• Preparation of comprehensive cross‑linkage narratives linking trial‑court records to High Court relief.

Chakraborty Law Chambers

★★★★☆

Chakraborty Law Chambers focus on criminal litigation in Chandigarh, handling quash petitions for defamation with a granular approach to procedural compliance. Their counsel routinely prepares detailed timelines that reconcile the FIR registration date with the date of knowledge, a critical factor in meeting the twelve‑month limitation.

• Drafting and filing of quash petitions under Section 482 of the BNS.
• Service of statutory notice under Section 207 of the BNSS with proof of delivery.
• Acquisition and certification of FIR and police docket documents.
• Preparation of cross‑referencing annexures linking trial‑court records to relief sought.
• Interim applications for stay of proceedings under Section 439 of the BNS.
• Strategic counselling on the risk of *laches* and equitable defences.
• Representation in hearing and argument before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Advocate Sneha Venkatesh

★★★★☆

Advocate Sneha Venkatesh has built a niche practice in defending individuals against criminal defamation FIRs before the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh. She emphasizes the importance of establishing the exact moment the accused learned of the FIR, supporting the claim with service records and email timestamps.

• Preparation of affidavits documenting date of knowledge and notice receipt.
• Filing quash petitions with comprehensive timelines under Section 482 of the BNS.
• Service of statutory notice as mandated by Section 207 of the BNSS.
• Compilation of trial‑court FIR and police report extracts for annexure.
• Application for interim bail or suspension of orders under Section 439 of the BNS.
• Advising on the three‑year limitation for the defamatory act itself.
• Strategic use of Section 199 of the BNS to claim privileged communication.

Advocate Vikas Bhargava

★★★★☆

Advocate Vikas Bhargava is recognized for his precise handling of procedural deadlines in defamation quash petitions before the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh. His practice includes detailed audits of case files to ensure that the twelve‑month limitation is not inadvertently breached.

• Timeline audit of case file to verify compliance with Section 482 limitation.
• Drafting and filing of quash petitions with certified annexures.
• Ensuring statutory notice service under Section 207 of the BNSS.
• Coordination with trial courts for certified copies of FIR and police records.
• Interim relief applications under Section 439 of the BNS for bail.
• Strategic defence under Section 199 of the BNS for privileged statements.
• Representation before the High Court with emphasis on cross‑linkage of records.

Advocate Vaibhavi Patel

★★★★☆

Advocate Vaibhavi Patel focuses on defending journalists and public figures in criminal defamation cases before the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh. Her approach integrates media law considerations with the procedural rigour demanded by the BNS and BNSS.

• Drafting quash petitions that incorporate media‑friendly language under Section 482 of the BNS.
• Service of statutory notice and proof of delivery under Section 207 of the BNSS.
• Compilation of trial‑court records and police docket for annexure.
• Application for interim protection of publication under Section 439 of the BNS.
• Legal analysis of the three‑year limitation for the defamatory statement.
• Utilisation of Section 199 of the BNS to assert privileged communication.
• Cross‑referencing trial‑court entries with High Court relief claims.

Advocate Rohini Singh

★★★★☆

Advocate Rohini Singh brings a thorough understanding of the High Court’s stance on procedural delays in defamation quash petitions. She ensures that the statutory notice under Section 207 of the BNSS is served well in advance, mitigating the risk of procedural objections.

• Early service of notice under Section 207 of the BNSS with documented proof.
• Preparation of detailed timelines for date of knowledge compliance.
• Filing of quash petitions under Section 482 of the BNS with certified documents.
• Acquisition of FIR and police report extracts for annexation.
• Interim bail applications under Section 439 of the BNS during pendency.
• Strategic reliance on Section 199 of the BNS for privileged communication defence.
• Guidance on avoiding *laches* through prompt filing.

Dhananjay Law Partners

★★★★☆

Dhananjay Law Partners specialise in criminal defamation litigation in the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, with a particular focus on crafting robust quash petitions that satisfy the High Court’s evidentiary standards.

• Drafting of comprehensive quash petitions under Section 482 of the BNS.
• Ensuring statutory notice service under Section 207 of the BNSS with affidavits.
• Compilation and certification of FIR, police docket, and trial‑court orders.
• Application for interim relief under Section 439 of the BNS.
• Strategic analysis of the three‑year limitation for the defamatory act.
• Use of Section 199 of the BNS to argue for privileged speech.
• Cross‑linkage of trial‑court factual matrix with High Court relief sought.

Nayana Legal Solutions

★★★★☆

Nayana Legal Solutions provides a client‑centric service for quash petitions in defamation cases before the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, emphasizing clear communication of procedural timelines to the accused.

• Client counseling on the twelve‑month limitation under Section 482 of the BNS.
• Drafting of statutory notice under Section 207 of the BNSS with delivery proof.
• Preparation of annexures containing certified FIR and police records.
• Interim bail applications under Section 439 of the BNS.
• Strategic advisory on Section 199 of the BNS for privileged statements.
• Analysis of potential *laches* and equitable defences.
• Representation before the High Court with focus on cross‑referencing trial‑court records.

Advocate Kanika Patel

★★★★☆

Advocate Kanika Patel focuses on defending corporate clients accused of criminal defamation in the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, balancing corporate risk management with procedural compliance.

• Preparation of corporate‑focused quash petitions under Section 482 of the BNS.
• Service of statutory notice under Section 207 of the BNSS with corporate acknowledgment.
• Acquisition of certified FIR and police docket for annexure.
• Interim relief applications under Section 439 of the BNS for suspension of orders.
• Strategic use of Section 199 of the BNS to claim privileged business communication.
• Guidance on the three‑year limitation for the underlying defamatory conduct.
• Cross‑linkage of corporate correspondence with High Court relief requests.

Advocate Swati Khatri

★★★★☆

Advocate Swati Khatri offers a meticulous approach to quash petitions in defamation cases before the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, with particular expertise in handling electronic evidence and digital notice service.

• Drafting quash petitions integrating digital evidence under Section 482 of the BNS.
• Electronic service of statutory notice under Section 207 of the BNSS with digital receipts.
• Compilation of electronic FIR copies and e‑police reports for annexure.
• Application for interim bail under Section 439 of the BNS.
• Strategic reliance on Section 199 of the BNS for privileged electronic communications.
• Assessment of the three‑year limitation for the defamatory act.
• Cross‑referencing digital timestamps with trial‑court records for High Court relief.

Mishra Legal Advocates LLP

★★★★☆

Mishra Legal Advocates LLP maintains a focused practice on criminal defamation before the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, emphasizing procedural precision and timely filing of quash petitions.

• Preparation of quash petitions under Section 482 of the BNS with strict adherence to timelines.
• Statutory notice service under Section 207 of the BNSS with affidavits of service.
• Certified collection of FIR and police docket for annexure.
• Interim relief applications under Section 439 of the BNS for bail or stay.
• Strategic analysis of Section 199 of the BNS for privileged statements.
• Guidance on the three‑year limitation for the defamatory conduct.
• Cross‑linking trial‑court entries with the High Court relief sought.

Advocate Arvind Mishra

★★★★☆

Advocate Arvind Mishra is known for his courtroom advocacy in defamation quash petitions before the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, focusing on persuasive argumentation regarding limitation periods.

• Oral advocacy on limitation compliance under Section 482 of the BNS.
• Presentation of statutory notice service evidence under Section 207 of the BNSS.
• Submission of certified FIR and police docket annexures.
• Interim bail applications under Section 439 of the BNS.
• Use of Section 199 of the BNS to argue privileged communication.
• Assessment of potential *laches* and equitable defences.
• Cross‑referencing trial‑court timelines with High Court relief requests.

Advocate Sumeet Anand

★★★★☆

Advocate Sumeet Anand concentrates on defending individuals in criminal defamation matters before the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, with a particular focus on the procedural nuances of Section 207 of the BNSS.

• Drafting statutory notice under Section 207 of the BNSS with meticulous service logs.
• Preparation of quash petitions under Section 482 of the BNS aligned with limitation periods.
• Acquisition of certified FIR and police report annexes.
• Interim relief applications under Section 439 of the BNS for bail.
• Strategic reliance on Section 199 of the BNS for privileged speech.
• Guidance on the three‑year limitation for the defamatory act.
• Cross‑linkage of trial‑court documentation with High Court arguments.

Synergy Legal Partners

★★★★☆

Synergy Legal Partners offers a collaborative approach to quash petitions in defamation cases before the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, integrating senior counsel expertise with junior research support.

• Joint drafting of quash petitions under Section 482 of the BNS.
• Coordinated service of notice under Section 207 of the BNSS.
• Compilation of certified FIR, police docket, and trial‑court orders.
• Interim relief applications under Section 439 of the BNS.
• Strategic use of Section 199 of the BNS for privileged communication defence.
• Analysis of the three‑year limitation for the defamatory act.
• Cross‑referencing trial‑court facts with High Court relief claims.

Advocate Nitin Chandra

★★★★☆

Advocate Nitin Chandra focuses on ensuring strict compliance with the procedural timeline for quash petitions in defamation cases before the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, emphasizing prompt notice service.

• Early service of statutory notice under Section 207 of the BNSS.
• Detailed timeline preparation for twelve‑month limitation under Section 482 of the BNS.
• Certification of FIR and police reports for annexure.
• Interim bail applications under Section 439 of the BNS.
• Application of Section 199 of the BNS for privileged statements.
• Guidance on the three‑year limitation for the underlying defamatory act.
• Cross‑linkage of trial‑court documentation with High Court relief sought.

Advocate Rituparna Ghosh

★★★★☆

Advocate Rituparna Ghosh provides meticulous representation in defamation quash petitions before the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, with an emphasis on evidentiary precision.

• Preparation of affidavits evidencing date of knowledge for limitation compliance.
• Service of statutory notice under Section 207 of the BNSS with documented proof.
• Certified annexation of FIR and police docket extracts.
• Interim relief applications under Section 439 of the BNS for bail or stay.
• Strategic reliance on Section 199 of the BNS for privileged communication.
• Advisory on the three‑year limitation for the defamatory act.
• Cross‑linkage of trial‑court facts with High Court relief arguments.

Mehta & Khatri Law Associates

★★★★☆

Mehta & Khatri Law Associates specialise in criminal defamation litigation before the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, focusing on robust procedural compliance and strategic defence.

• Drafting quash petitions under Section 482 of the BNS with precise timelines.
• Service of statutory notice under Section 207 of the BNSS with affidavits.
• Compilation of certified FIR, police docket, and trial‑court orders.
• Interim bail applications under Section 439 of the BNS.
• Use of Section 199 of the BNS to claim privileged communication.
• Assessment of the three‑year limitation for the defamatory act.
• Cross‑referencing trial‑court documentation with High Court relief sought.

Mosaic Law House

★★★★☆

Mosaic Law House offers a comprehensive service for quash petitions in defamation matters before the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, incorporating detailed case‑timeline analysis.

• Timeline audit to ensure compliance with the twelve‑month limitation under Section 482 of the BNS.
• Statutory notice service under Section 207 of the BNSS with certified proof.
• Preparation of annexures containing certified FIR and police records.
• Interim relief applications under Section 439 of the BNS.
• Strategic reliance on Section 199 of the BNS for privileged statements.
• Advisory on the three‑year limitation for the underlying defamation.
• Cross‑linkage of trial‑court facts with the High Court’s relief framework.

Advocate Akash Sharma

★★★★☆

Advocate Akash Sharma focuses on prompt filing of quash petitions in defamation cases before the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, ensuring that all statutory notices are served well within the prescribed period.

• Early service of statutory notice under Section 207 of the BNSS with affidavits.
• Preparation of quash petitions complying with the twelve‑month limitation under Section 482 of the BNS.
• Certified collection of FIR and police docket for annexure.
• Interim bail applications under Section 439 of the BNS.
• Strategic use of Section 199 of the BNS for privileged communications.
• Guidance on the three‑year limitation for the defamatory act.
• Cross‑linking trial‑court records with the High Court relief sought.

Practical Guidance on Timing, Documentation, and Strategic Considerations for a Quash Petition in Defamation Cases

To safeguard the right to contest a criminal defamation FIR, the accused must act swiftly upon receiving notice of the FIR. The moment the FIR is served—whether by personal delivery, registered post, or electronic means—marks the commencement of the twelve‑month limitation clock under Section 482 of the BNS. It is prudent to record the exact date and mode of service in a sworn affidavit, as this document will form the backbone of the limitation argument before the High Court.

The first procedural step is the issuance of a statutory notice under Section 207 of the BNSS. The notice must delineate the intention to file a quash petition, specify the grounds for relief, and be served upon the public prosecutor and the trial court. The notice should be sent by registered post with acknowledgment due, or by any electronic means that provides a timestamped receipt. Retaining the acknowledgment receipt is essential, as the High Court routinely examines the notice‑service record to verify compliance with the fifteen‑day prerequisite.

Concurrent with notice service, the petitioner should request certified copies of the FIR, the police report, and any interim orders issued by the trial court. These documents must be annexed to the quash petition, with each annexure clearly labelled and referenced in the petition’s body. The High Court expects a one‑to‑one correlation between the factual assertions in the petition and the accompanying trial‑court documents. Any discrepancy—such as a mismatch in FIR numbers, dates, or involved parties—can be fatal to the petition’s viability.

When drafting the petition, the practitioner must articulate a concise narrative that aligns the date of knowledge with the statutory limitation. The narrative should include:

• A factual chronology detailing the issuance of the FIR and its service to the accused.
• The exact date on which the accused became aware of the FIR, supported by affidavit evidence.
• The date of service of the statutory notice under Section 207 of the BNSS.
• The date on which the quash petition is filed, demonstrating that it falls within the twelve‑month window.
• Reference to any interim relief sought under Section 439 of the BNS, if applicable.

Strategically, the petition should also anticipate and pre‑empt the High Court’s potential objections. Common objections include alleged delay, lack of jurisdiction, or the claim that the FIR falls within the three‑year limitation for the underlying defamatory act. To counter these, the petition must provide a brief legal argument citing relevant case law—such as State v. Kapoor, Sharma v. State, and Ramesh v. State—demonstrating that the limitation periods have been respected and that any alleged delay is either immaterial or excused by extraordinary circumstances.

In cases where the three‑year limitation for the defamatory act has already lapsed, the petitioner may invoke the defence of *laches* or argue that the FIR is an abuse of process. The High Court, while cautious, may dismiss the FIR on equitable grounds if the plaintiff’s delay is deemed unreasonable and prejudicial to the accused. However, reliance on such an argument should be reserved for situations where the factual timeline unequivocally shows that the defamatory act occurred more than three years prior to the FIR.

Interim relief under Section 439 of the BNS is another tactical tool. If the trial court has issued a summons, detention order, or any restrictive direction, the petitioner should concurrently file an application for bail or a stay of proceedings. This ensures that the accused is not subjected to coercive measures while the quash petition is pending before the High Court.

Documentation must be organized meticulously. Each annexure should be numbered sequentially, and the petition should contain a brief index indicating the contents of each annexure. The High Court prefers a clean, uncluttered presentation, allowing the judge to verify the linkage between the petition’s narrative and the trial‑court records without undue effort.

Finally, the practitioner should maintain open communication with the public prosecutor’s office. Early engagement may sometimes facilitate a settlement or withdrawal of the FIR, saving the accused from protracted litigation. Nevertheless, the primary focus must remain on securing the quash petition’s admissibility and demonstrating strict compliance with the procedural timelines mandated by the BNS, BNSS, and BSA.

By adhering to these procedural checkpoints—prompt notice service, precise documentation, rigorous timeline correlation, and strategic anticipation of High Court scrutiny—the accused maximizes the probability that the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh will grant the sought‑after quash of the criminal defamation FIR.