Bangalore District Court
Arunachala Hebbar vs Smt. Shreya on 1 February, 2017
C.R.P.67 Govt. of Karnataka
Form No.9 (Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgments in Suits
(R.P.91)
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-15) AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 1st day of February, 2017.
PRESENT:
Sri PATIL NAGALINGANAGOUDA, B.A.,LL.B.(Spl.),
VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-15),
Bengaluru.
ORIGINAL SUIT No.5993/2008
PLAINTIFF : Arunachala Hebbar,
S/o. Late Pattabhirama Hebbar,
Aged about 38 years,
Presently residing at
'Aradhana', Munchooru,
Srinivasanagar Post,
Surathkal, Mangalore,
presently camped at:
C/o. A.S. Nagendra,
No.203, Tejas Comforts,
Ramanna Gardens,
Lalbagh, Siddapura,
Jayanagar I Block,
Bengaluru - 560 011.
(By Sri H. Suresh, Advocate)
-VERSUS-
DEFENDANTS : 1. Smt. Shreya,
D/o. K.G. Chandrashekar Rao,
Aged about 24 years,
Residing at:
C/o. Srinivasa Murthy,
No.70, 4th Main,
Ayappa Reddy Garden,
Yashavanthapura,
Bengaluru.
-2- O.S. No.5993/2008
2. N.N. Shiva Kumar,
S/o. N.B. Nageshaiah,
Aged about 39 years,
Residing at No.563,
4th Main Road,
Meenakshinagar,
Kamakshipalya,
Bengaluru.
3. R. Ravi,
S/o. Gangappa,
Aged about 34 years,
No.55, 2nd Cross,
Railway Parallel Road,
Yashavanthapura,
Bengaluru.
4. Naveen,
S/o. Manohar Rao,
Aged about 36 years,
No.241, 1st Cross,
5th Main, 2nd Stage,
Kumaraswamy Lay-out,
Bengaluru.
5. Venkataramana Karanth,
S/o. Late Ramakaranth,
Aged about 52 years,
Old No.34, New No.71,
11th Cross, 1st Main,
Malleshwaram,
Bengaluru.
6. Jayachandra,
(Defendant No.6's father's
name is not known to the
plaintiff),
Aged about 40 years,
Geetha Medicals,
No.5/1, LIC Colony,
B.K. Nagar Main Road,
Yashavanthapura,
Bengaluru.
7. Chandrashekar Rao,
S/o. Gopala Rao,
Cont'd..
-3- O.S. No.5993/2008
Aged about 57 years,
Kavali village, Koppa taluk,
Chickmagalur district.
8. Rama Murthy,
S/o. Nageshaiah,
Aged about 44 years,
No.70, 4th Main,
Ayyappa Reddy Garden,
Yashavanthapura,
Bengaluru - 560 022.
9. Smt. Jayanthi,
W/o. Rama Murthy,
Aged about 40 years,
No.70, 4th Main,
Ayyappa Reddy Garden,
Yashavanthapura,
Bengaluru - 560 022.
(Defendants 3 and 6 :
placed ex-parte)
(Defendants 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 to
9 by Sri A.R.B., Advocate)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Institution of the Suit : 08-09-2008
Nature of the Suit (Suit on : Suit for recovery of damages.
pronote, Suit for declaration
and possession, Suit for injun-
ction etc,)
Date of the commencement : 08-11-2013
of recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 01-02-2017
was pronounced
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Year/s Month/s Day/s
----------------------------------
Total duration : 8 years, 4 months, 23 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
(PATIL NAGALINGANAGOUDA)
VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
An&/- Bengaluru.
Cont'd..
-4- O.S. No.5993/2008
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for judgment and decree to direct the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.7,52,650/- towards mental torture and for harassment, defamation, damages, loss of income, expenses incurred and on other grounds for having maliciously prosecuted the plaintiff before the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru in C.C. No.17020/2006 and to grant interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from the date of suit till date of realisation.
2. The brief facts of the plaint are as under:-
Plaintiff has contended he is a freelance photo journalist and has bagged various awards including national awards and international acceptances for his photography. He wrote several photo features in national lever newspaper and magazines and he has also given several programmes in All India Radio. Plaintiff has participated as resource person for several programmes, held several photo exhibitions and slide shows about Andaman, Himalayas, Nature conservation all over Karnataka. Apart from that in various daily newspapers the article of the plaintiff has been printed appraising his photography and his achievements.
It is submitted defendant No.1 is distant relative of the plaintiff. Defendant No.7 is father, defendant Nos.2 Cont'd..
-5- O.S. No.5993/2008 to 6, 8 and 9 are relatives, followers and henchmen of defendants 1 and 7. Plaintiff came into contact with defendant No.1 at his sister's marriage ceremony and the said contact turned to friendship as the plaintiff is the brother of defendant No.1's uncle's wife. The friendship had began between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 used to oftenly call upon the plaintiff through phone and thereafter started meeting personally, as such the friendship turned to a love affair as the defendant No.1 herself expressed her intention to marry the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 had proposed the plaintiff looking into he being a photographer, photo journalist and has bagged number of awards and is a known personality, taking these aspects the defendant No.1 had decided to marry and on number of occasions, the defendant No.1 had expressed her intention to run away from the home and to get married, but the plaintiff being a photographer and photo journalist, reporter apart from being a respectable citizen advised the defendant No.1 in good words and as such made the defendant No.1 to put forth the words to her parents to take him as her life partner. Adhering to the words of the plaintiff, the defendant No.1 had also put forth the same, to which all of a sudden defendant No.7 and her mother and other defendants expressed their unwillingness and immediately took defendant No.1 to illegal custody and locked her in a separate room. Thereafter, defendant No.7 had made arrangements in search of bridegroom. Immediately, defendant No.1 Cont'd..
-6- O.S. No.5993/2008 after coming to know about the said arrangements being unable to call upon the plaintiff had wrote a letter expressing her desire to get marry the plaintiff by her letter dated 13-09-2005. After receipt of the said letter, plaintiff tried to convince defendant No.7, but on the contrary defendant No.1 turned hostile towards the plaintiff and thereafter, defendants 1 to 9 threatened the plaintiff of dire consequences. Defendants 2 to 9 who are good elements started threatening the plaintiff through phone and had threatened the plaintiff to do away with his life and limbs. Fearing danger at the hands of the defendants, plaintiff lodged complaint against defendants, but the jurisdictional police failed to take any action, therefore plaintiff filed P.C.R. No.14129/2006 before the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru which is pending for adjudication.
It is submitted immediately after the defendants coming to know about the complaint being filed against them, on 12-01-2006 defendants along with other persons have lodged complaint through defendant No.1 against the plaintiff before Yashavanthapura police in CrimeNo.23/2006 and have made surreptious attempts to take the plaintiff into custody so as to defame his name and reputation in the eye of general public.
It is submitted defendants 2 to 9 only to get marry defendant No.1 to other person have played the entire foul play that took hand-in-glove with Yashavanthapura Cont'd..
-7- O.S. No.5993/2008 police and on 12-05-2006, defendant No.1's marriage was solemnized. Thereafter, Yashavanthapura police started searching about the whereabouts of the plaintiff. Having no other alternative, plaintiff preferred anticipatory bail application before the Fast Track Court VII, Bengaluru and obtained anticipatory bail. It is submitted when he approached the police with bail copy, Police Inspector Shivanna abused him in filthy language and harassed the plaintiff in front of defendants 1, 2, 5 and 8. From the said act of the Inspector, plaintiff lodged a complaint before the Lokayuktha and Police Commissioner and due to that, plaintiff suffered serious loss, damage and hardship to his business, name and fame earned and the reputation caused by the defendants.
It is submitted defendant foisted a case against the plaintiff in Crime No.23/2006 relying upon the subsequent complaint filed by the defendants. First defendant had lodged false complaint on 13-01-2006 against the plaintiff at about 1:00 p.m. before Yashavanthapura police alleging that defendant while going towards Medical Store, plaintiff followed her and forced her to marry him or otherwise he will not leave defendant No.1 and gave life threat and accordingly the first defendant lodged complaint and the said complaint is registered in Crime No.23/2006. Subsequently, Yashavanthapura police filed charge sheet. Thereafter, plaintiff faced trial in order to substantiate his case. It Cont'd..
-8- O.S. No.5993/2008 is submitted after trial was completed, the First Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court acquitted plaintiff holding that defendants have miserably failed to substantiate and prove the allegations set out in the charge sheet. It is submitted by virtue of the alleged complaint foisted by the defendants had made the plaintiff to attend before the learned Magistrate Court for more than a year. During the course of trial, plaintiff has lost an income of Rs.91,000/- towards his professional career and the plaintiff has suffered loss to an extent of 2,82,000/- towards agricultural investment and plaintiff was mentally disturbed and tortured and also the defendant No.1 had humiliated the plaintiff stating that she had no relationship with the plaintiff. Since the mental disturbance and torture suffered by the plaintiff is unaccountable, plaintiff restricted his claim to a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and he engaged his Advocate to defend his case and obtained an order of bail, for which plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- as professional fee and he has spent incidental expenses around Rs.10,000/-. It is submitted due to ill attitude of the defendants, plaintiff was forced to travel all the way from Mangalore to Bengaluru to attend the cases on every date of hearing, thereby incurred huge traveling expenses apart from lodging and boarding expenses which totally the plaintiff has incurred a sum of Rs.10,800/- towards conveyance and Rs.33,850/- towards lodging and boarding apart from unaccountable Cont'd..
-9- O.S. No.5993/2008 expenses. Lastly, it is submitted plaintiff was made to suffer mentally and incur huge expenditure, hence the plaintiff is now claiming damages for causing defamation, humiliation, torturing both physically and mentally. Thus, defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.7,52,650/- to the plaintiff. With this submission, plaintiff prayed to decree the suit.
3. On the other hand, in spite of service of summons, defendants 3 and 6 have not appeared before the Court, hence defendants 3 and 6 were placed ex- parte.
4. In pursuance of summons, defendants 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 to 9 have appeared before the Court and filed their separate written statements. The brief facts of the written statements of defendants are as under -
Defendant No.1 has contended defendant No.1 pleads ignorance that plaintiff is a photo journalist and he has bagged various national and international awards. It is contended plaintiff is trying to mislead the Court by explaining his achievements which are not relevant in so far as the present case is concerned. Defendant No.1 has admitted plaintiff was introduced to defendant No.1 with an introduction of plaintiff being a journalist and having lot of respect in the society. Defendant No.1 denied that she expressed her intention to marry plaintiff. Defendant No.1 further contended in fact plaintiff expressed his intention to marry her and Cont'd..
- 10 - O.S. No.5993/2008 plaintiff continued his persuasion and requested her number of times to get approval from her parents. In fact, plaintiff did not have any job on hand and plaintiff was a commercial photographer and used to earn little out of it. Plaintiff was living with his sister at Surathkal and he did not have a capacity to look after defendant No.1 after his marriage. Defendant No.1 has admitted she had written letter dated 13-09-2005 expressing her inability to get consent from her parents. Further, defendant No.1 has contended upon receipt of letter, plaintiff met defendant No.1 at Sringeri. Entire future course of action for leading life was discussed at length between defendant No.1 and plaintiff. It is contended plaintiff was planning to forcibly stay in the house of defendant No.1 as parents are not having any male issues. This prompted defendant No.1 to realize the intention of the plaintiff is only to grab property of parents of the defendant No.1 and not to love her at all, therefore defendant No.1 decided it is not worth pursuing marriage proposal with a person who is not self-dependent and does not have any self-respect, therefore she refused the marriage between them for ever.
It is submitted defendant No.1 could not tolerate the pressure being mounted by the plaintiff, therefore defendant No.1 requested her parents to make her staying arrangements elsewhere to escape the eagle eye of the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 was moved to Shimoga Cont'd..
- 11 - O.S. No.5993/2008 to stay with her sister. Somehow plaintiff came to know defendant No.1 is staying in Shimoga and started visiting that place, started giving threats to her. Thereafter, defendant No.1 moved to Bengaluru for her safety and stayed in the house of one Ramamurthy who is defendant No.8. Being the close relative circle, plaintiff managed to collect information about whereabouts of defendant No.1 and started making calls to the house of Ramamurthy and started threatening him for keeping custody of defendant No.1. It is submitted on 13-01-2006, defendant No.1 had been to a medical shop near Ramamurthy's house at about 1:00 p.m. and plaintiff managed to meet defendant No.1 and warned her if she does not agree for marriage, she may have to face serious consequences and in this regard, she has lodged complaint before Yashavanthapura police on 14-01-2006. It is submitted rest of the defendants have no personal interest in the family affairs of defendant Nos.1 and 7. Allegation of the plaintiff defendants 2 to 9 being hand-in-glove in the solemnization of marriage of defendant No.1 is false and baseless. It is submitted it is the police who have filed case against the plaintiff and not by the defendants. Police have taken necessary action as per the complaint lodged by defendant No.1 and same is done as per law. With this submission, defendant No.1 prayed to dismiss the suit.
Cont'd..
- 12 - O.S. No.5993/2008
5. The brief facts of the written statement of defendants 2, 4, 5, 7 to 9 are as under -
Defendants have contended complaint being filed by the plaintiff is not well within their knowledge. They have contended defendant No.1 had filed a complaint before Yashavanthapura police as she had a valid case against the plaintiff and hence, it was filed. Further, they have contended they are only witnesses being included by the prosecution in C.C. No.17020/2006. Further, they have taken contention there is no personal vengeance against the plaintiff or any other defendants at any point of time. It is only for the sake of complaint lodged by defendant No.1 and other defendants were called before the Court to render their statement and same is done by them on the summons issued by the Court. Further, defendants have contended claim made by the plaintiff more particularly with regard to loss of professional income, loss of agricultural income are all false and baseless. With this submission, defendants prayed to dismiss the suit.
6. On the basis of the above said pleadings, this Court has framed the following -
ISSUES
1) Does the plaintiff prove that the
defendants maliciously and without any Cont'd..
- 13 - O.S. No.5993/2008
reasonable and probable cause
prosecuted him?
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the damages as prayed?
3) What order or decree?
7. In order to substantiate averments of the plaint, plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and got documents marked as per Exs.P.1 to P.43 and closed his side.
8. When case posted for defendants' evidence, defendant No.2 himself examined as D.W.1, defendant No.5 himself examined as D.W.2, defendant No.7 who is also power of attorney holder of defendant No.1 himself examined as D.W.3, defendant No.8 himself examined as D.W.4 and got documents marked as per Ex.D.1.
9. I have heard arguments from both sides. At the time of argument, Advocate for defendants submitted written arguments and relied the rulings.
10. My findings on the above Issues are as under -
ISSUE No.1 - Negative;
ISSUE No.2 - Negative;
ISSUE No.3 - As per final order, for the following -
Cont'd..
- 14 - O.S. No.5993/2008
REASONS
11. ISSUE No.1 : At the time of argument,
Advocate for plaintiff has vehemently argued plaintiff is a freelance photo journalist and has bagged various awards including national awards and international acceptances for his photography and plaintiff has wrote several photo features in national level newspaper and magazines and he has also given several programmes in All India Radio. It is argued plaintiff has participated as resource person for several programmes, held several photo exhibitions and slide shows about Andaman, Himalayas, Nature conservation all over Karnataka. Apart from that in various daily newspapers the article of the plaintiff has been printed appraising his photography and his achievements. It is argued defendant No.1 is distant relative of the plaintiff and defendant No.7 is father and defendant Nos.2 to 6, 8 and 9 are relatives, followers and henchmen of defendants 1 and 7. It is argued the friendship had began between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 used to oftenly call upon the plaintiff through phone and thereafter started meeting personally, as such the friendship turned to a love affair as the defendant No.1 herself expressed her intention to marry the plaintiff and defendant No.1 had proposed the plaintiff taking into consideration that plaintiff being a photographer, photo journalist and has bagged number of awards and is a known personality, taking these aspects the Cont'd..
- 15 - O.S. No.5993/2008 defendant No.1 had decided to marry and on number of occasions, the defendant No.1 had expressed her intention to run away from the home and to get married, but plaintiff being a photographer and photo journalist, reporter apart from being a respectable citizen advised the defendant No.1 in good words and as such made the defendant No.1 to put forth the words to her parents to take him as her life partner. It is argued thereafter defendant No.1 wrote a letter expressing her desire to get marry the plaintiff by her letter dated 13- 09-2005. Immediately after receipt of the said letter, plaintiff tried to convince defendant No.7, but on the contrary defendant No.1 turned hostile towards the plaintiff. It is argued there is no dispute that there was love affairs between plaintiff and defendant No.1 and it is also not in dispute plaintiff lodged complaint before jurisdictional police and jurisdictional police have not taken any action, therefore plaintiff has filed private complaint against the defendants. It is argued thereafter defendants with an intention to cause mental harassment and to defame the plaintiff created a story and lodged false complaint before Yashavanthapura police and Yashavanthapura police colluded with defendant has registered Crime No.23/2006 on 14-01- 2006 and thereafter, filed false charge sheet against the plaintiff. It is argued after completion of trial, I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court has acquitted the plaintiff. Due to the above said malicious prosecution, plaintiff suffered serious loss, damage and Cont'd..
- 16 - O.S. No.5993/2008 hardship to his business, name and fame. With this
submission, Advocate for plaintiff prayed to answer Issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiff.
12. On the other hand, Advocate for defendants have vehemently argued stating that there is no dispute with regard to love affair of the plaintiff and defendant and since parents of defendant No.1 opposed the marriage of plaintiff with defendant No.1, plaintiff attempted to convince parents of the defendant No.1. It is argued since defendant No.1 has not agreed to marry plaintiff against the will and wish of her parents in spite of that plaintiff persuaded defendant No.1 to marry her and in order to take revenge against defendant No.1 and her parents, he has filed private complaint. It is argued since plaintiff in one such event threatened defendant more particularly on 13-01-2006, therefore defendant No.1 lodged complaint on 14-01-2006 after lot of deliberation. It is argued there is no role played by either defendant No.1 or rest of the defendants in registering the case against the plaintiff. It is argued defendants 2 to 8 are the witnesses in the Criminal Case instituted against the plaintiff and they have not at all supported the case of the prosecution. Lastly, it is argued prosecution case which ended in acquittal cannot be treated as malicious prosecution. With this submission, Advocate for defendant prayed to answer this Issue in favour of the defendant.
Cont'd..
- 17 - O.S. No.5993/2008
13. On careful perusal of the oral as well as documentary evidence of both the sides, this Court is of the opinion that plaintiff has failed to prove that defendant maliciously and without any reasonable and probable cause prosecuted him. In the present case, some of the admitted facts are that there is no dispute with regard to status of the plaintiff which he has earned in the society. It is not in dispute plaintiff has bagged various awards including national and international acceptance for his photography. Even it is not in dispute plaintiff has participated as resource person for several programmes and conducted photo exhibitions slide shows about Andaman, Himalaya, nature conservation all over Karnataka. Even it is not in dispute defendant No.1 is the distant relative of plaintiff and defendant No.7 is father of defendant No.1. It is not in dispute defendants 2 to 6, 8 and 9 are relatives of defendants 1 and 7. It is also not in dispute friendship had begun between plaintiff and defendant No.1 and friendship turned to a love affair. It is not in dispute both have decided to marry after obtaining permission from their respective parents. It is also not in dispute defendant No.1 after discussion with her parents wrote a letter expressing her desire to get marry plaintiff by her letter dated 13-09-2005. It is also not in dispute in the said letter more particularly which is marked as per Ex.P.14, defendant No.1 has disclosed the fact that her parents are not willing to perform her marriage with plaintiff. Even it is not in dispute after Cont'd..
- 18 - O.S. No.5993/2008 receipt of the letter, plaintiff tried to convince father of defendant No.1 and thereafter, defendants 1 and 7 turned hostile towards plaintiff. It is also not in dispute plaintiff approached jurisdictional police with an allegation defendants 1 to 9 threatened him and since jurisdictional police failed to take action, plaintiff had filed P.C.R. No.14129/2006 before the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. Even it is not in dispute defendant No.1 had approached Yashavanthapura police on 14-01-2006 and lodged complaint against plaintiff with allegation plaintiff threatened her with dire consequences and plaintiff pressurized her to get marry him. It is not in dispute Yashavanthapura police registered case against plaintiff and plaintiff approached Court, initially obtained anticipatory bail and thereafter obtained regular bail. It is not in dispute on the basis of the complaint filed by defendant No.1 after investigation, police have filed charge sheet against the plaintiff and thereafter recording evidence of defendants 2 to 9 and after giving finding that defendant No.1 who lodged complaint has not turned up to give evidence, I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court has passed acquittal order acquitting plaintiff from the alleged offence.
14. Keeping in mind of the above said admitted facts, this Court has to see whether plaintiff has proved defendants maliciously and without any reasonable and probable cause prosecuted him. It is settled principles Cont'd..
- 19 - O.S. No.5993/2008 of law that prosecution case which ended in acquittal cannot be treated as malicious prosecution unless malice is established by the plaintiff. Now, this Court has to see whether plaintiff has established the alleged malice of the defendants in instituting criminal case against him. Documents produced by the plaintiff more particularly Exs.P.1 to P.11 are in respect of status of the plaintiff. As I have discussed above, there is no dispute with regard to status of the plaintiff. Even it is not in dispute plaintiff has bagged various awards including national awards and international acceptance for his photography. On perusal of Exs.P.1 to P.11, it is evident plaintiff did fantastic job in the photography field and in writing articles to the daily newspaper. Further, the above said documents disclose outstanding performance of the plaintiff in his field, but contents of those documents are not only sufficient for the plaintiff to prove Issue No.1.
15. On perusal of Ex.P.23 which is a complaint filed by defendant No.1 against plaintiff on 14-01-2006, in the said complaint defendant No.1 has narrated with regard to her close intimacy with the plaintiff. In the complaint, defendant No.1 has also stated plaintiff used to make phone calls to her house and plaintiff has expressed her desire to marry her. In the complaint, it is stated in the month of October, 2005 she had been to Shimoga to her sister's house and plaintiff succeeded in obtaining phone number of her sister and used to call to Cont'd..
- 20 - O.S. No.5993/2008 phone No.08182-271247. Further, in the complaint it is stated when she returned to Bengaluru when she was staying in the house of her sister at Bengaluru, again plaintiff has succeeded to trace the address of her sister's house and called to phone No.23462775. In the complaint, it is stated in the phone call, plaintiff threatened her and pressurized her to get marry him. Lastly, in the complaint it is stated on 13-01-2006 at about 1:00 p.m. when she had been to Geetha Medical Shop which is situated near the house of her sister, plaintiff met her and again threatened her saying "¤Ã£ÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁUÀ¢zÀÝgÉ ¤£ÀߣÀÄß ªÀÄÄV¸ÀÄvÉÛãÉ".
16. When these are the averments of the complaint, at the out set, it can be said plaintiff has utterly failed to prove that defendants maliciously and without any reasonable cause prosecuted him. Since there was a love affair between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 as it was not ended in fruitful manner desired by the plaintiff and defendant No.1, naturally at the instance of parents of defendant No.1, defendant No.1 might have lodged complaint against the plaintiff with an intention to keep distance from the plaintiff. Nowhere in the complaint defendant No.1 has alleged that plaintiff is a fraud and cheater. Even defendant No.1 has not alleged initially plaintiff promised her to marry, thereafter plaintiff has not shown his interest to marry her. On the contrary, in the complaint it is stated in spite of her refusal to marry him, plaintiff Cont'd..
- 21 - O.S. No.5993/2008 persuaded her to marry him. Further, in Ex.P.24 it is stated plaintiff has threatened her with dire consequences. When such being averments of the complaint, without any hesitation it is to be held averments of the plaint are not defamatory in nature in order to claim damages against defendants.
17. It is contention of the plaintiff that defendant No.1 alone loved him and she only proposed him. Admittedly, aspect of love is a mutual reaction. This is a scientific and biological tendency and it cannot be uprooted by the so-called factual statement. Defendant No.1 in the written statement has taken specific contention she blindly believed the plaintiff without verifying his statements and defendant No.1 has also admitted that she had written a letter dated 13-09-2005 expressing her inability to get consent of her parents. In the written statement, defendant No.1 has also contended upon receipt of the letter, plaintiff met her at Sringeri and during the discussion with regard to future course of action, she could make out that plaintiff does not have any plan to live independently with his own source of income and plaintiff is planning to forcibly stay in the house of her parents as her parents are not having any male issues. In my considered view, averments of the written statement coupled with admission of P.W.1 in his cross-examination. In the cross-examination, P.W.1 has specifically admitted he did not have permanent job at that time and he was just Cont'd..
- 22 - O.S. No.5993/2008 a freelance photo journalist. Further, he has admitted defendant No.1 proposed him to marry in the year 2002 and rejected in the year 2005. So, prima facie it reveals claim made by the plaintiff is barred by limitation, because on perusal of the records, it reveals C.C. No.17020/2006 decided on 06-03-2007 acquitting the plaintiff and present suit for damages instituted on 08- 09-2008. Further, in the cross-examination P.W.1 has admitted defendant No.1 has expressed her desire to marry him in the year 2002 and thereafter, she has refused to marry him on the advice of her parents. He has also admitted defendants 2 to 9 are only witnesses in the case instituted by defendant No.1 before Yashavanthapura police on 14-01-2006. He has admitted Court has passed an acquittal order on the ground that defendant No.1 has not turned up to give her oral evidence. He has admitted Court has not passed acquittal order on the ground defendant No.1 has lodged false case and witnesses have deposed false evidence. Admittedly, as per the records, witnesses have turned hostile to the prosecution case. He has also admitted police have filed 'B' report in respect of his private complaint lodged against the defendants and his parents. These are the admissions of P.W.1 not helpful to the case of the plaintiff to prove that defendants maliciously and without any reasonable cause prosecuted him.
Cont'd..
- 23 - O.S. No.5993/2008
18. Ex.P.12 is the call details issued by BSNL. Contents of the said document also not helpful to the case of the plaintiff, because it is not in dispute plaintiff and defendant No.1 made several calls as there was love affair between them. Exs.P.13 and P.14 are the photographs which depict picture of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 along with their family members. Even contents of those documents are also not helpful to the case of the plaintiff to prove Issue No.1. Ex.P.16 are message details. Even contents of those message details are not harmful to the reputation of the plaintiff. Exs.P.17 and P.18 are one and the same documents. The said documents are copies of complaint filed by the plaintiff before the Commissioner of Police and Assistant Commissioner of Police with an allegation about receipt of threatening calls. Ex.P.19 is an acknowledgement issued by the Police Commissioner's office. Ex.P.10 is order sheet of P.C.R. No.14129/2006. Ex.P.21 is a letter issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Police under the Right to Information Act along with statement of Narayanaswamy, Ramamurthy. Ex.P.22 is also information received by the plaintiff under the Right to Information Act. Ex.P.23 is copy of the complaint filed by the defendant against the plaintiff before Yashavanthapura police. Ex.P.24 is F.I.R. Ex.P.26 is copy of the bail order. Ex.P.27 is copy of the complaint filed by plaintiff against the Police Inspector Shivanna. Ex.P.28 is also copy of the complaint filed by the plaintiff before the Commissioner of Police against the Cont'd..
- 24 - O.S. No.5993/2008 Police Inspector Shivanna. Ex.P.29 is copy of order
sheet of C.C. No.17020/2006. Ex.P.30 is copy of the mahazar. Ex.P.31 is copy of the charge sheet. Exs.P.32 to P.36 are the depositions of K.G. Chandrashekar, Ramamurthy, Jayanthi, Shivakumar, Venkataramana in C.C. No.17020/2006. Ex.P.37 is copy of the judgment passed in C.C. No.17020/2006. Nowhere in the above said document, defendants have defamed the plaintiff with an intention to destroy his reputation
19. Ex.P.25 is the wedding card. It discloses defendant No.1 has married one Deepak K. Varna on 12-05-2006 prior to institution of this suit and on perusal of the cross-examination of P.W.1, it discloses defendant No.1 now settled at America along with her husband. Even defendant No.1 has not turned up to give her oral evidence. No doubt defendant No.7 who is father of defendant No.1 has given evidence on the basis of the power of attorney. Simply in his evidence he has deposed initially defendant No.1 expressed her intention to marry plaintiff since he has not agreed, defendant No.1 has refused to marry plaintiff and now defendant No.1 married one Deepak K. Varna and settled at U.S.A. When this being the status of defendant No.1, this Court is of the opinion that plaintiff has filed this suit only to take revenge against defendant No.1 and their family members.
20. At the time of argument, Advocate for defendant has vehemently argued and relied the Cont'd..
- 25 - O.S. No.5993/2008 decisions reported in ILR 2007 KAR 4851 in a case W.E. Sathyanarayana -versus- W.S. Vijayakumar. In the above said decision, Hon'ble High Court held the dictum thus -
"SUIT FOR DAMAGES - Ground - Malicious prosecution - Complaint filed by the respondent against the appellant under Sections 324 and 506 IPC - Discharge of the accused/appellant - Closure of the criminal case in favour of the appellant - Whether confer any right on the appellant to claim damages by instituting a suit - HELD, The closure of the criminal case cannot be held as a malicious prosecution unless it is shown that, the complaint filed by the defendant is false and the acquittal order is passed by the jurisdictional Magistrate on a clear finding that the initiation of the criminal case is based on false complaint -
FURTHER HELD, Even assuming that the written statement is not filed, the Court is not precluded from examining the plaintiff's case on merit to grant a decree
- All prosecution cases which ended in acquittal cannot be treated as malicious prosecution, unless the malice is established by the plaintiff - The conclusion arrived by the Trial Court in dismissing the suit is just and proper.
Appeal is dismissed."
Cont'd..
- 26 - O.S. No.5993/2008
21. In the above said decision, Hon'ble High Court held closure of the Criminal Case cannot be held as malicious prosecution unless it is shown that the complaint filed by the defendant is false and acquittal order is passed by the jurisdictional Magistrate on the clear finding that initiation of the Criminal Case is based on false complaint. At no stretch of imagination plaintiff has proved complaint filed by defendant No.1 is false and acquittal order is passed by the First Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court on a clear finding that initiation of Criminal Case is based on false complaint. In my considered view, principle laid down in the above said decision is exactly applicable to the case on hand.
22. On the other hand, defendant No.2 himself examined as D.W.1 and defendant No.5 himself examined as D.W.2. Defendant No.7 himself examined as D.W.3 and defendant No.8 himself examined as D.W.4. In their evidence, they have deposed reiterating the averments of their respective written statements. Though D.Ws.1 to 4 have cross-examined at length, nothing has been brought on record to disbelieve their evidence. In the cross-examination, they have specifically deposed they had no personal interest in prosecuting C.C. No.17029/2006. In fact, evidence of D.W.3 who is father of defendant No.1 is a material evidence to be considered by this Court. In his evidence, he has specifically deposed he is not aware of Cont'd..
- 27 - O.S. No.5993/2008 the fact that his daughter used to call upon the plaintiff over phone and started meeting personally. Further, he has deposed in the month of December, 2005 he came to know there is a rift between defendant No.1 and plaintiff and on enquiry, defendant No.1 told plaintiff is forcing her to marry, therefore he has sent defendant No.1 to Shimoga and even plaintiff followed there and subsequently, he has shifted defendant No.1 to the house of defendants 8 and 9 at Bengaluru. Further, he has deposed defendant No.1 requested him to make her staying arrangements elsewhere to escape the eagle eye of the plaintiff. Further, he has deposed thereafter, he has sent defendant No.1 to Bengaluru for her safety and stayed in the house of Ramamurthy who is defendant No.8 being the close relative. Further, he has deposed he came to know from defendant No.8 on 13-01-2006 defendant No.1 had been to medical shop near Ramamurthy's house at 1:00 p.m. At that time, plaintiff managed to meet defendant No.1 and warned her if she does not agree for marriage, she may have to face serious consequences. Lastly, he has deposed defendant No.1 after lot of deliberations lodged complaint before Yashavanthapura police on 14-01-2006 and thereafter police have taken legal action against the plaintiff. Though D.W.3 cross-examined at length, nothing has been brought on record to disbelieve his evidence. No doubt in the cross-examination D.W.3 has admitted complaint filed by her daughter was dismissed, but in view of the above said principle, plaintiff cannot seek Cont'd..
- 28 - O.S. No.5993/2008 damages. Hence, viewed from any angle, I am of the
opinion that evidence of D.Ws.1 to 4 also helpful to the case of the defendant to resist the claim of the plaintiff. Hence, my answer to above Issue is in negative.
23. ISSUE No.2 : Since plaintiff has not proved material Issue No.1, certainly plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of damages sought. Apart from this, as per Article 74 of the Limitation Act, the time limitation provided for filing suit for compensation for malicious prosecution is one year from the date of acquittal. Admittedly, the order of acquittal passed in C.C. No.17020/2006 on 06-03-2007. It is admitted fact the present suit for damages is instituted on 08-09-2008. So, it is evident there is a delay to the extent of more than six months in filing the instant suit and there is no explanation tendered by the plaintiff for such delay. Therefore, suit of the plaintiff is barred by law of limitation. Since plaintiff has not proved material Issue No.1, certainly plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of damages. Hence, my answer to above Issue is in negative.
24. ISSUE No.3 : For my reasons and discussion on the above Issues, I proceed to pass the following -
ORDER Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants, is hereby dismissed.
Cont'd..
- 29 - O.S. No.5993/2008 In the above circumstances, no order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to Judgment Writer, transcribed by him, revised by me and after corrections, pronounced in open Court on this the 1st day of February, 2017.) (PATIL NAGALINGANAGOUDA) VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, An&/- Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
Examined on:
P.W.1 : Arunachala Hebbar 08-11-2013
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS:
Ex.P.1 : Udaya Vani kannada daily news paper, paper publication dated 03.03.10, 28.04.2000, 05.09.04, 05.12.2000, 20.04.2002, 23.07.2006.
Udaya Vani kannada daily news paper, paper publication dated 03.03.10, 28.04.2000, 05.09.04, 05.12.2000, 20.04.2002, 23.07.2006.
Publication dated 01.02.01 in Taranga Weekly (Relevant page No.62 and 63).
The Hindu English News paper, paper publication dated 20.04.02.
Cont'd..
- 30 - O.S. No.5993/2008 The Prajavani Daily News Paper, paper publication dated 17.10.02, 28.05.2003, 22.07.2006 and 25.07.2006.
Kannada Prabha Kannada Daily news paper publication dated 14.12.05, 12.12.2000, 25.05.2003, 20.09.2003,13.08.2005, 26.11.2005. The New Indian Times English daily News paper, paper publication dated 22.12.05.
Samyuktha Karnataka Kannada daily news paper, paper publication dated 11.12.2000.
Vijayakarnataka paper publication dated 28.05.2003, 28.01.2003, 16.07.2006.
Malenaadu Varthe paper publication dated 01.06.2003.
Vijaya times English news paper, paper publication dated 11.08.2005, 25.08.2005.
Ushakiran Kannada daily news paper publication dated 22.07.2006 they are marked together at Ex.P.1 (27 paper publications) Ex.P.2 : Certificates marked together. Ex.P.3 : 2 books along with relevant pager marked together.
Ex.P.4 : 10 Invitation letters.
Ex.P.5 : Letter dated 01.08.2005.
Ex.P.6 : 2 Broachers.
Ex.P.7 : 4 Souvenir Books.
Ex.P.8 : 4 Articles published in Taranga weekly.
Ex.P.9 : Web site print out about the plaintiff.
Ex.P.10 : Letter dated 03.02.2004.
Cont'd..
- 31 - O.S. No.5993/2008
Ex.P.11 : Another Broacher.
Ex.P.12 : BSNL Mobile call details.
Ex.P.13 : 4 Photographs with negatives. Ex.P.14 : Letter dated 13.09.2005 written by 1st defendant. Ex.P.15 : Horoscope of defendant No.1 with postal cover. Ex.P.16 : 10 pages of copies of mobile message details. Ex.P.17 : Certified copy of Complaint dated 12.01.2006. Ex.P.18 : Another complaint dated 12.01.2006. Ex.P.19 : Endorsement dated 12.01.2006. Ex.P.20 : Order sheet in PCR No.14129/06. Ex.P.21 : Memorandum dated 22.06.2011 issued by Asst.
Police Commissioner along with statement of PC Narayanaswamy, PSI and statement of Ramamurthy (Defendant 8).
Ex.P.22 : Report issued by Asst. Police commissioner. Ex.P.23 : Certified copy of police complaint dated 14.01.2006.
Ex.P.24 : Certified copy of FIR.
Ex.P.25 : Marriage invitation letter. Ex.P.26 : Certified copy of anticipatory bail order. Ex.P.27 : Certified copy of Complaint lodged by the plaintiff to Lokayukta along with endorsement. Ex.P.28 : Certified copy of Police complaint lodged by the plaintiff dated 28.03.2006 Ex.P.29 : Certified copy of Order sheet in CC 17020/06. Ex.P.30 : Certified copy of mahazar.
Ex.P.31 : Certified copy of Charge sheet in above case. Ex.P.32 : Certified copy of deposition of KG Chandrashekar. Ex.P.33 : Certified copy of deposition of Ramamurthy. Ex.P.34 : Certified copy of deposition of Jayanthi. Ex.P.35 : Certified copy of deposition of Shivakumar. Ex.P.36 : Certified copy of deposition Venkataramana.
Cont'd..
- 32 - O.S. No.5993/2008 Ex.P.37 : Certified copy of judgment dated 06.03.200. Ex.P.38 : 5 enumeration receipts.
Ex.P.39 : Communication letter dated 23.10.2006. Ex.P.40 : 3 Invitation cards.
Ex.P.41 : 8 RTC extracts.
Ex.P.42 : Bus booking bills and tickets. Ex.P.43 : Certified copy of copy application.
3. WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANTS:
D.W.1 : Shivakumar 11-01-2016 D.W.2 : Venkataramana Karanth 11-01-2016 D.W.3 : K.G. Chandrashekar Rao 11-01-2016 D.W.4 : Ramamurthy 11-01-2016
4.DOCUMENT MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS:
Ex.D.1 : General Power of Attorney dated 29-06-2016.
(PATIL NAGALINGANAGOUDA) VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, An&/- Bengaluru.
Cont'd..