Defamation in India is both a crime and a civil wrong, and you can pursue either or both. They achieve different things.
Criminal defamation
Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which carries forward Section 499 and 500 IPC. Making or publishing any imputation concerning a person, intending to harm or knowing it will harm their reputation, is an offence punishable with simple imprisonment up to two years, or fine, or both. It is non-cognizable and bailable, and it is initiated by a private complaint before the Magistrate, not by an FIR.
The section carries a set of exceptions, and they are broad: truth published for the public good, fair comment on the conduct of a public servant or on a public question, publication of court proceedings, and expression of opinion in good faith about a person's conduct in a matter touching a public question.
The section is also wider than the person who wrote the words. It separately covers printing or engraving matter known to be defamatory, and the sale of printed material known to contain it, which is why publishers and distributors get named alongside authors. Where the imputation is satire or parody rather than an assertion of fact, the question becomes whether a reasonable reader would take it as fact at all, and that line is worked through in our note on when satire becomes a crime in India.
How a criminal complaint actually proceeds
Because defamation is non-cognizable, there is no FIR and no police investigation. You file a complaint before the Magistrate under Section 223 BNSS, and the Magistrate examines you and your witnesses on oath before deciding whether to take cognizance. The BNSS adds a proviso that changes the timetable: no cognizance may be taken without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard. So the person complained against is in the case before process issues, and the complaint must be drafted to be read by the other side from the outset.
Watch the clock too. Under Section 514 BNSS cognizance of an offence punishable with more than one year but not more than three years is barred after three years. Defamation carries up to two years, so it sits inside that band, and a complaint about a post from four years ago is ordinarily out of time.
| Criminal | Civil | |
|---|---|---|
| Forum | Magistrate, on private complaint | Civil court |
| Standard of proof | Beyond reasonable doubt | Balance of probabilities |
| Outcome sought | Punishment | Damages and injunction |
| Court fee | Nominal | Ad valorem on the damages claimed |
| Truth as a defence | Truth plus public good | Truth alone |
| Takedown of content | Not directly available | Available by injunction |
Civil defamation
A tort. You sue for damages and, more usefully, for an injunction to restrain further publication and to take down what is already out. There is no statute; it is common law, and the elements are a defamatory statement, referring to the plaintiff, published to a third party, without lawful justification.
In Bengaluru the suit goes to the City Civil Court or the jurisdictional civil court depending on the amount claimed, and the court fee is governed by the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958. Unlike a criminal complaint, the fee is ad valorem on the damages claimed, so an inflated figure is an expensive way of making a point. The application that matters is the one for a temporary injunction under Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, made at the time of filing and decided within the first few hearings. Plead the specific words, the date and the URL, who read them, and the actual damage, because generalised assertions of lost reputation carry little at the interim stage.
| Criminal | Civil | |
|---|---|---|
| What you get | Conviction, fine, imprisonment | Damages and injunction |
| Standard of proof | Beyond reasonable doubt | Preponderance of probabilities |
| How it starts | Private complaint to Magistrate | Suit in civil court |
| Court fee | Nominal | Ad valorem on damages claimed |
In civil defamation, truth alone defeats the claim. In criminal defamation, truth is a defence only if the publication was also for the public good. That is a meaningful difference and it is why criminal complaints sometimes survive where a civil suit would not.
Preserve the material before you do anything else
The commonest self-inflicted wound here is that the post is deleted after the notice and before the suit, leaving the plaintiff with a screenshot and no way to prove it. Record it properly: full-page captures showing the URL, the date and the account handle, an archived version of the page, and at least one person who saw it and can say so. Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, electronic material must be produced with the certificate required by Section 63 each time it is tendered, so do this at the start rather than reconstructing it two years later. Where the material is a manipulated image, a synthetic video or a misused likeness rather than a written allegation, the claim is a different one, dealt with in our note on personality rights and deepfakes in India.
What I usually suggest
Start with a cease and desist notice and platform takedown requests. Most defamation resolves there. If you go to court, a civil suit with an application for an interim injunction is generally more useful, because what you actually want is for the material to come down. Criminal complaints are slow and are increasingly viewed critically where they look like an attempt to silence criticism.
One last point that helps settlements. Defamation is compoundable, and under Section 359 BNSS it may be compounded by the person defamed without the court's permission, except for complaints made by a public prosecutor about the public functions of constitutional office holders and ministers, which need leave. So the complaint can be closed by agreement once an apology and a takedown are delivered, which is what most of these disputes are actually about.