CRL.M.C./5618/2026 of X COMMUNICATIONS INDIA PVT LTD Vs ANUP JUNEJA AND ORS on 4 August 2026

O R D E R

% 04.08.2026

1. By way of these petitions under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioners assail an order dated 18.07.2025, by which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate’s Court, pursuant to a private complaint instituted by respondent No. 1

under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, against the petitioners and respondent No. 2, for the offences under Sections 356(1)/356(2)/356(3)/351(2)/351(3)/61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2. Issue notice in CRL.M.C. 5618/2026. Mr. Lalit Valecha, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 1, and consents to the petitions being taken up for disposal.

3. The petitioners herein - proposed accused are X Communications India Private Limited [in CRL.M.C. 5618/2026] and X CORP [in CRL.M.C. 7785/2025].

4. By an order dated 06.11.2025 in CRL.M.C. 7785/2025, this Court directed as follows: “1. By the present petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of Complaint No. CC NI ACT/49063/2024.

2. The complaint was filed by Respondent No. 1 alleging criminal defamation, intimidation and conspiracy against the accused persons including the petitioner corporation.

3. The petitioner challenges the continuation of the proceedings claiming the status of intermediary under Section 2(1)(w) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act).

4. It is the case of the petitioner that it is exempted from any liability for third party actions in terms of Section 79 of the IT Act.

5. It is further contended that the petitioner being a corporation, cannot possess any mens rea necessary for alleged offences of criminal defamation or intimidation.

6. Issue notice. Notice be served through all permissible modes.

7. The learned Trial Court is directed not to proceed against the petitioner till the next date of hearing.

8. List on 29.01.2026.”

5. Mr. Valecha, who appears on advance notice, states that respondent No. 1 does not wish to proceed against the petitioners in the subject complaint. As pre-summoning evidence has not been led, and the petitioners have not been summoned, Mr. Valecha states that he will make this submission before the Magistrate’s Court, and seek necessary directions to drop the petitioners.

6. In view of the above statement, no further orders are required in these petitions.

7. The petitions, alongwith pending applications, are therefore disposed of binding respondent No. 1 to the aforesaid statement.

8. Respondent No. 2 is another proposed accused in the complaint filed before the Magistrate’s Court. Having regard to the limited nature of the reliefs sought, I have not considered it necessary to await the appearance of respondent No. 2. It is, however, made clear that this order is without prejudice to the rights and remedies of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the pending proceedings before the Magistrate’s Court. PRATEEK JALAN, J AUGUST 4, 2026 ‘pv’/MK/