Delhi District Court
Satish Kumar Sharma vs Sudesh Sharma on 18 September, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. RENU BHATNAGAR
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, SHAHDARA
DISTRICT KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CNR No.DLSH01-002234-2018
CS No. 325/18
SH. SATISH KUMAR SHARMA
S/o Sh. Nathi Sharma
R/o 1/9749, West Gorakh Park,
Delhi.
.....PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1. SMT. SUDESH SHARMA
W/o Not Known.
2. SH. PANKAJ @ ASHU
S/o Smt. Sudesh Sharma
Both R/o 1/2079,
Main Durga Mandir Marg,
Ram Nagar, Delhi-110032.
.....DEFENDANTS
Date of Filing : 07.04.2018
Arguments heard on : 05.08.2024
Date of Judgment : 18.09.2024
JUDGMENT
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF DAMAGES ON ACCOUNT OF DEFAMATION AND COMPENSATION OF RS.10,00,000/- (RUPEES TEN LACS ONLY) AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION This is a suit filed by plaintiff for recovery of damages on account of defamation and compensation of Rs.10 lakhs and Digitally signed by RENU RENU BHATNAGAR BHATNAGAR Date:
2024.09.18 16:37:36 +0530 CS No. 325/18 Satish Kumar Sharma Vs. Sudesh Sharma & Anr Page No.1 of 21 permanent injunction from the defendants.
Brief Facts as disclosed in the plaint :-
1. According to the plaintiff, he is a peace loving and law abiding citizen of India and is residing at H.No.1/9749, West Gorakh Park, Delhi. The defendant no.1 had filed two petitions U/s 125 Cr.PC and petition U/s 9 of Hindu Marriage Act respectively in Family Courts, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi against the plaintiff. Subsequently, the defendant no.1 and the plaintiff settled the matter vide settlement deed dated 05.04.2013.
As per the settlement, the plaintiff gave Rs.10,50,000/- to defendant no.1 as full & final settlement ( towards past, permanent and future permanent alimony). It was agreed between defendant no.1 and the plaintiff that in future they shall have no relationship and they will not interfere in others life and will not claim anything from each other in future. It is stated the defendant no.1's statement was also recorded before the court of Shri B.R. Kedia, the then Ld. Principal Judge, Family Courts, Delhi. Pursuant to the said settlement, the petition U/s 9 of Hindu Marriage and petition U/s 125 Cr.P.C were disposed of by the Ld. Principal Judge, Family Courts, Delhi vide order dated 15.10.2016.
2. It is stated that the defendants after disposal of both the above said petitions, with the intention to take revenge and grab money from the plaintiff, filed a civil suit against him titled as Pankaj Sharma Vs. Satish Sharma & Ors., which is pending adjudication before Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. It is further Digitally stated that the defendants, just for grabbing the property of the signed by RENU RENU BHATNAGAR BHATNAGAR Date:
2024.09.18 16:38:16 +0530 CS No. 325/18 Satish Kumar Sharma Vs. Sudesh Sharma & Anr Page No.2 of 21 plaintiff, created forged I.D. on Facebook in the name of the son of the plaintiff and uploaded the joint photo of the defendant No.l and the plaintiff on the said fake 1.D. and thus lowered the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff in the eyes of his relatives and society. It is alleged by the plaintiff that the defendants also uploaded the morphed photos of the plaintiff on internet and whenever the plaintiff tried to talk with the defendants, they started blackmailing him.
3. It is stated that the defendant no.2 is misusing the photographs of the plaintiff, by creating his morphed photographs, on internet due to which the relatives of plaintiff are questioning him, which are not tolerable by the plaintiff. That due to the above said act and conduct of the defendants, the plaintiff and his family members are suffering from mental and physical agony and are living a very miserable life and their life has become a hell in the eyes of society.
4. It is stated that on 12.04.2017 the defendants made a false call to the police at 100 number, and the police officials of PS M.S. Park detained the plaintiff and his family till late hours which caused a very painful experience to the plaintiff and his family members. It is stated that the defendants are continuously harassing, torturing and blackmailing the plaintiff and his family members and saying that "if the plaintiff will not transfer his house in their name, then the defendants will make the plaintiff's and his family members lives miserable and send them behind the bar".
5. It is stated that defendant no.2 has created false and Digitally signed by RENU baseless messages regarding relationship between the plaintiff RENU BHATNAGAR BHATNAGAR Date:
2024.09.18 16:38:35 +0530 CS No. 325/18 Satish Kumar Sharma Vs. Sudesh Sharma & Anr Page No.3 of 21 and defendant no.1, due to which the plaintiff and his family members are suffering from great depression and feeling shame and are unable to move outside their house. It is further stated that the defendants are spreading rumors against the unmarried daughter of plaintiff namely Jyoti by spreading false and baseless messages in the society, due to which the image of the daughter of the plaintiff has been down in the society and the plaintiff is facing many difficulties and hardships to arrange the marriage of his unmarried daughter.
6. It is stated that the plaintiff served a legal notice dated 18.04.2017 upon defendants no.1 and 2 for creating interference and hindrances in the peaceful living of the plaintiff and his family members and also to stop their illegal activities on internet against the plaintiff and to pay Rs. 10,00,000/- as compensation for defaming the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff in the eyes of his relatives and society. It is stated that the notice was duly served upon and received by the defendants, but the defendants did not comply with the legal notice till date and are not stopping their illegal activities against the plaintiff and his family members, despite repeated objections of the plaintiff and his family members.
7. It is stated that due to the aforesaid act and conduct of the defendants, the plaintiff and his family members are living a miserable life and are feeling insulted in the society and are suffering from mental and physical agony and torture. It is stated that due to non employment of the plaintiff, the plaintiff and his family members have reached at the verge of starvation. That the Digitally defendants with malafide intention and ulterior motives, have signed by RENU RENU BHATNAGAR BHATNAGAR Date:
2024.09.18 16:38:55 +0530 CS No. 325/18 Satish Kumar Sharma Vs. Sudesh Sharma & Anr Page No.4 of 21 caused huge damage to the reputation, respect, prestige and fame of the plaintiff and his family members in the eyes of respectable persons of the locality, relatives and common friends. It is stated that the plaintiff many times visited at police station and requested to take appropriate action against the defendants, but the concerned police officials did not take any action against the defendants. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking following reliefs:-
A. Pass a money decree of Rs.10,00,000/- for recovery of damages on account of defamation as compensation in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants no.1 & 2 on account of damages and compensation.
B. Pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants thereby restraining the defendants and their associates, agents, successors, representatives etc. from not to interfere in the peaceful living of the plaintiff and his family members in any manner.
C. Award cost of litigation of Rs.50,000/ in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Written Statement :-
8. In the written statement filed by the defendants, they have taken preliminary objections that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable because the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts. The suit is without any cause of action and has been filed with malafide Digitally intention in order to harass and humiliate both the defendants. It signed by RENU RENU BHATNAGAR is stated that it is admitted that the defendant No.1 is the wife of BHATNAGAR Date:
2024.09.18 16:39:48 +0530 CS No. 325/18 Satish Kumar Sharma Vs. Sudesh Sharma & Anr Page No.5 of 21 the plaintiff and defendant No.2 is the son of the plaintiff and that defendant No.1 had filed a petition u/s 125 Cr. P.C. against the plaintiff and thereafter the matter was settled, and that defendant No.2 is the son of the plaintiff and he has filed a suit for partition in the property against the plaintiff and the same is pending in KKD Courts, Delhi. It is stated that defendant No.2 loves his parents and he has full right to put the photographs of his parents on WhatsApp or Facebook as the same is not an offence and hence, the present suit is liable to be rejected. It is further stated that defendants have several documents to show that the plaintiff is the husband of the defendant No.1 and father of defendant No.2. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff with malafide intention in order to harass and humiliate both the defendants because the defendant No.2 has filed the suit for partition against the plaintiff
9. On merits, the defendants have denied the contents of the plaint. The defendants have denied that the plaintiff is a peace loving and law abiding citizen. It is stated that the plaintiff is habitual in filing false cases and earlier plaintiff had grabbed the property of his real brother Yogesh Sharma and he faced trial for long time. The defendants have admitted that defendant No.1 had filed a petition U/s 125 Cr.PC and petition U/s 9 of Hindu Marriage Act against the plaintiff and in lieu of settlement, Rs.10,50,000/- were received by the defendant No.1. However, the defendants have denied that defendant no.1 had received full and final settlement towards past, permanent and future alimony. It is further denied that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 had agreed that in future they shall have no relationship with each Digitally signed by RENU other and and that they will not interfere in the life of each other RENU BHATNAGAR BHATNAGAR Date:
2024.09.18 16:40:10 CS No. 325/18 Satish Kumar Sharma Vs. Sudesh Sharma & Anr Page No.6 of 21 +0530 and will not claim anything from each other.
10. It is stated that from the contents of para No.2 of the plaint it is very much clear that the plaintiff is the husband of defendant No.1 and due to this reason he had entered into a settlement with defendant no.1 and he had paid alimony to her. It is stated that after settlement the plaintiff had again started living with the defendants and lived with them for about 3 months, but now he is under the influence of his second wife and her children and due to this reason he has filed the present suit without any reason.
11. Defendants have denied that they have filed civil suit with the intention to take revenge and to grab money from the plaintiff. It is further denied that the defendants created a forged ID in the Facebook in the name of son of the plaintiff. Defendants have denied that they have lowered down the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff in the eyes of relatives and society or that they are blackmailing the plaintiff. Defendants have also denied that the defendant No.2 is misusing the photographs of the plaintiff by creating his morphed photographs. It is stated that the plaintiff is the husband of the defendant No.1 and father of the defendant No.2 and all the relatives and family members are fully aware about the relationship of the plaintiff with both the defendants.
12. Defendants have further denied that on 12.04.2017 they had made a false call to the police at 100 number and the police officials of PS. M.S Park had detained the plaintiff and his family members till late hours. It is stated that the plaintiff and his family members had assaulted both the defendants after entering Digitally signed by in their house and due to this reason police was called. It is RENU RENU BHATNAGAR BHATNAGAR Date:
2024.09.18 16:40:19 +0530 CS No. 325/18 Satish Kumar Sharma Vs. Sudesh Sharma & Anr Page No.7 of 21 further denied that the defendants are continuously blackmailing and torturing the plaintiff and his family members by saying that "if the plaintiff will not transfer his house in their name then the defendants will make the plaintiff and his family members lives miserable and send them behind the bar ". It is stated that it is the plaintiff who wants to get rid from both the defendants and wants to run away from his liability by levelling false and baseless allegations against both the defendants.
13. It is denied by the defendants that defendant No.2 has created false and baseless messages regarding the relationship between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 due to which the plaintiff and his family members feel shame and are unable to move outside the house or that the plaintiff and his family members are suffering from great depression. Defendants have further denied that both the defendants are spreading rumors about the unmarried daughter of the plaintiff by giving false and baseless messages in the society or that due to this reason the image of the daughter of the plaintiff has lowered down in the society or that the plaintiff is facing many difficulties and hardships to arrange the marriage of his unmarried daughter. It is stated that all the allegations levelled against the defendants are totally false and baseless.
14. It is stated that no notice was ever served upon the defendants and hence, nо question arose to pay Rs. 10 Lakhs to the plaintiff as compensation. It is stated that the defendants never defamed the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff and hence, no question arises to serve any notice upon the defendants. Digitally signed by It is stated that both the defendants are family members of the RENU RENU BHATNAGAR BHATNAGAR Date:
2024.09.18 16:40:29 +0530 CS No. 325/18 Satish Kumar Sharma Vs. Sudesh Sharma & Anr Page No.8 of 21 plaintiff and they have equal right on the plaintiff. Defendants have denied that they have caused any damage to the reputation and respect/prestige of the plaintiff in the eyes of family members, relatives and common friends. It is stated that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff without any cause of action in order to harass and humiliate the defendants. Hence, it is prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be rejected.
ISSUES :-
15. After completion of the pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 09.04.2019, passed by Sh. Vineet Kumar, the then Ld. ADJ-01, Shahdara District, KKD Courts, New Delhi, following issues were framed :-
1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to money decree of Rs. Ten lacs for recovery of damages on account of defamation as compensation from defendants as prayed for? OPP
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as claimed? OPP.
2. Relief.
No other issue is pressed upon by the parties.
Evidence of the Plaintiff :-
16. In support of his case, plaintiff himself appeared as PW-1 and has filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/1, in which he has reiterated the averments of his plaint. The plaintiff in his evidence has relied upon the following documents :-
i. Copy of Adhaar card of plaintiff - Ex.PW1/A (OSR).
ii. Copy of Election I-Card of plaintiff - Ex.PW1/B (OSR).
Digitally iii. Copy of Election I-Card of son of plaintiff namely Nitin signed by RENU RENU BHATNAGAR BHATNAGAR Date:
2024.09.18 16:40:40 +0530 CS No. 325/18 Satish Kumar Sharma Vs. Sudesh Sharma & Anr Page No.9 of 21 Sharma - Mark A. iv. Snaps of WhatsApp Chat and Facebook profile of defendant - Ex.PW1/C (Colly). (Objected to by Ld. Counsel for defendant as to mode of proof). v. Certificate U/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act with respect to screenshots of WhatsApp Chat and Facebook profile of defendant - Ex.PW1/D. vi. Copy of complaint dated 18.04.2017 lodged by plaintiff against the defendants with SHO, PS Shahdara - Mark B. vii. Copy of Ordersheet dated 15.10.2016 passed by Ld. Principal Judge, Family Courts, Shahdara, KKD Courts in HMA No.202/15 - Mark C. viii.Copy of legal notice dated 18.04.2017 sent by plaintiff to defendants - Ex.PW1/E. ix. Photocopies of postal receipts with respect to legal notice sent to the defendants - Mark D (Colly). x. Copy of status report filed by the IO/SHO in respect of complaint filed under Section 156 (3) Cr. PC by the plaintiff - Mark E (Colly).
17. Plaintiff also got examined his relative Sh. Dev Dutt Sharma, who appeared as PW-2 and filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW-2/A. In his evidence he has relied upon copy of his Adhaar Card Ex.PW-2/1 (OSR). The testimony of PW-2 shall be considered at the appropriate stage in the later part of my judgment.
Evidence of the Defendant :-
18. Both defendants Smt. Sudesh Sharma and Sh. Pankaj Digitally signed by RENU Sharma themselves appeared as DW-1 and DW-2 respectively RENU BHATNAGAR BHATNAGAR Date:
2024.09.18 16:40:49 +0530 CS No. 325/18 Satish Kumar Sharma Vs. Sudesh Sharma & Anr Page No.10 of 21 and filed their evidence by way of affidavits Ex.DW-1/A and Ex. DW-2/A respectively. Defendant no.1 in her evidence relied upon photographs with the plaintiff after settlement in the petition under Section 125 Cr. PC which are Ex.DW1/1 (Colly). Defendant no.2 in his evidence relied upon photocopy of his Aadhar card Ex.DW2/1 and already relied upon and exhibited documents Ex.DW1/1 (Colly) of defendant no.1.
Arguments of the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff:-
19. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that that defendant no.1 has flouted the terms of the settlement deed dated 05.04.2013 entered into between the plaintiff and defendant no.1 before Family Court, KKD Courts, Delhi, wherein the defendant no.1 had received a sum of Rs.10,50,000/- from plaintiff towards full & final settlement (towards past, permanent and future permanent alimony) and it was agreed between them that in future they shall have no relationship, will not interfere in their life and will not claim anything from each other in future. However, the defendants with the intention to take revenge and grab money and property from the plaintiff, have uploaded morphed joint photographs of the plaintiff and defendant no.1, representing them as husband and wife, from a forged Facebook I.D, which has lowered down the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff in the eyes of relatives and society. It is further stated that defendants are tarnishing the image of unmarried daughter of the plaintiff by spreading rumors in the society which has caused great difficulty to the plaintiff to marry his daughter. It is stated that due to this act and conduct of the defendants, the plaintiff Digitally signed by and his family members are suffering from mental and physical RENU RENU BHATNAGAR BHATNAGAR Date:
2024.09.18 16:40:57 +0530 CS No. 325/18 Satish Kumar Sharma Vs. Sudesh Sharma & Anr Page No.11 of 21 agony and they are leading a miserable life. It is stated that thus plaintiff is entitled for recovery of damages and compensation from the defendants and permanent injunction.
Arguments of defendants.
20. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for defendants has argued that defendant no.1 is the wife of the plaintiff and defendant no.2 is the son of plaintiff. It is stated that defendant no.2 loves his parents very much and he has full right to put the photographs of his parents on social media as the same is not an offence and hence, the present suit is liable to be dismissed. It is further stated that defendants have several documents to show that the plaintiff is the husband of the defendant No.1 and father of defendant No.2. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff with malafide intention in order to harass and humiliate both the defendants because the defendant No.2 has filed the suit for partition against the plaintiff. It is thus argued that the present suit is liable to be dismissed.
Conclusion
21. I have heard the submissions of both the sides and have perused the record.
22. My issue-wise findings are as under:-
Issue No.1:
1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to money decree of Rs. Ten lacs for recovery of damages on account of defamation as compensation from defendants as prayed for? OPP Digitally
23. The onus to prove this issue is upon the plaintiff and to signed by RENU RENU BHATNAGAR BHATNAGAR Date:
2024.09.18 16:41:07 +0530 CS No. 325/18 Satish Kumar Sharma Vs. Sudesh Sharma & Anr Page No.12 of 21 prove the same, plaintiff himself appeared as PW-1 and his brother in law (jija) had appeared as PW-2.
24. Before deciding this case, it is necessary to refer to the law as to what amounts to defamation. Any false statement published or spoken deliberately, intentionally, knowingly with the intention to damage someone's reputation is defamation. In India libel (written defamatory statement) and slander (oral defamatory statement) are the types of defamation, and both are considered as criminal offence punishable under criminal law. Defamation is also punishable in civil law to pay the monetary compensation for the legal damages suffered by the plaintiff.
25. Where the Constitution of India guarantees freedom of speech and expression to its citizens, social media can be seen as a free platform for a person to express their views, thoughts or opinion freely. Injuring a person's reputation on the internet by making the use of social media is cyber defamation. For example: publishing a defamatory statement on a social networking site such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram etc., or sending of emails containing defamatory content about a person with the intention to defame them.
26. At times, when free speech runs contradictory to a person's reputation it becomes pertinent for the State to establish a boundary.
27. All defamation related criminal and civil laws are applicable to the defamation done by the use of social media.
28. Every person has a right to live with dignity as provided under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and to live with Digitally signed by RENU BHATNAGAR dignity, reputation must remain unharmed. With freedom of RENU BHATNAGAR Date:
2024.09.18 16:41:16 +0530 CS No. 325/18 Satish Kumar Sharma Vs. Sudesh Sharma & Anr Page No.13 of 21 speech and expression every citizen has a right to express their views, but with certain restrictions.
29. In the case of Ram Jethmalani vs Subramaniam Swamy, AIR 2006 Delhi 300, decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the court dealt with defamation made by the defendant in the written final arguments, in which Rem Jethmalani was claimed to have obtained money from LTTE. The plaintiff approached and complained against the defendant over such an accusation, which was held to be defamatory.
30. In the case of Ram Jethmalani vs Subramaniam Swamy (supra), it was held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court:-
"92. Defamation is a public communication which tends to injure the reputation of another. What statements are defamatory and the span of defenses varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction but there is common agreement in all jurisdictions that statements that are unflattering, annoying, irksome, embarrassing or hurt one's feelings are not actionable. Common element in all jurisdictions is the potential to injure the reputation.
93. Since law of defamation, by making actionable certain utterances, runs counter to another widely accepted legal tenent
- the right to freedom of expression, the two have been harmonised by judicial process so that an individual's right of privacy and protection of honour and reputation is preserved and at the same time the public interest in free speech is also protected".
31. The court further held that:-
"95. Traditional defenses to an action for defamation have now become fairly crystallized and can be compartmentalized in 3 compartments : truth, fair comment and privilege. Truth, or justification, is a complete defense. The standard of proof of truth is not absolute but is limited to establishing that what was spoken was 'substantially correct'. Fair comment offers protection for the expression of opinions. Standard of proof is not that the Court has to agree with the opinion, but is limited Digitally signed by to determine whether the views could honestly have been held RENU RENU BHATNAGAR by a fair-minded person on facts known at the time. Unlike BHATNAGAR Date:
2024.09.18 16:41:25 +0530 CS No. 325/18 Satish Kumar Sharma Vs. Sudesh Sharma & Anr Page No.14 of 21 defense of truth, defense based on fair comment can be defeated if the plaintiff proves that the defamer acted with malice. Similar is the situation where the defense is of qualified privilege. Privilege is designed to protect expression made for the public good. Protection of qualified privilege is lost if actual malice is established. In public interest, absolute privilege is a complete defense. Rationale of absolute privilege being restricted to Court proceedings or proceedings before Tribunals which have all the trappings of a Civil Court and Parliamentary proceedings is that if threat of defamation suits loom large over the heads of lawyers, litigants, witnesses, Judges and Parliamentarians it would prohibit them from speaking freely and public interest would suffer".
32. In the present case, the plaintiff has claimed damages alleging that the defendants had created a false I.D on Facebook in the name of the son of the plaintiff and uploaded joint photograph of defendant no.1 and the plaintiff on the said fake I.D and in this way lowered down the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff in the eyes of his relatives and society.
33. The plaintiff has also alleged that the defendants also uploaded morphed photographs of the plaintiff on internet.
34. It is the admitted fact of the parties that defendant no.1 had filed a case under Section 125 Cr. PC and a petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act in Family Court, KKD Courts, Delhi, against the plaintiff in which defendant no.1 and the plaintiff settled the matters through settlement deed dated 05.04.2013, whereby the plaintiff gave Rs.10.5 lakhs to defendant no.1 as full and final settlement (towards past, permanent and future permanent alimony) and defendant no.1 and the plaintiff agreed that in future they will have no relationship with each other and will not interfere in the life of each other and will not claim anything from each other in future.
Digitally
signed by
RENU
RENU BHATNAGAR
BHATNAGAR Date:
35. It is also an admitted fact that after recording the statement 2024.09.18 16:41:34 +0530 CS No. 325/18 Satish Kumar Sharma Vs. Sudesh Sharma & Anr Page No.15 of 21 of defendant no.1 before the court of Sh. B.R. Kedia, the then Principal Judge, Family Court, KKD Court, Delhi, the petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act and the petition under Section 125 Cr. PC were disposed of.
36. It is also an admitted fact of the plaintiff that he lived with defendant no.1 for about 20-21 years. He has volunteered in his cross-examination that he lived in live in relationship with the defendant no.1.
37. Defendant no.1 has also claimed that she is the wife of the plaintiff and defendant no.2 is the son of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has nowhere disputed his relationship with defendant no.2. Defendant no.1 as well as defendant no.2 have also admitted to have settled the cases filed under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act and under Section 125 Cr. PC respectively, as stated above.
38. It is also an admitted fact that in his individual capacity defendant no.2 has also filed a suit for partition claiming right in the ancestral property of the plaintiff being his son. Defendant no.1, in her defence, has claimed that even after the settlement, the plaintiff continued to live with her and she has also filed few photographs in that regard.
39. Defendant no.1 has also claimed that plaintiff is her husband and father of defendant no.2, which fact is known to the relatives and family members of the plaintiff. Defendant no.1 has also claimed that defendant no.2 loves very much his parents and has full right to put the photographs of his parents on WhatsApp and Facebook and that putting photographs of his parents is no Digitally signed by RENU offence.
RENU BHATNAGAR
BHATNAGAR Date:
2024.09.18
16:41:43
+0530 CS No. 325/18 Satish Kumar Sharma Vs. Sudesh Sharma & Anr Page No.16 of 21
40. It is an admitted fact that defendant no.2 was not a party to the proceedings between plaintiff and defendant no.1 nor he was part of the settlement. The settlement executed between the plaintiff and his mother / defendant no.2 is certainly not binding on him as parents cannot restrict the rights of their children by any settlement executed between them. Plaintiff has also admitted in his cross-examination that there was no term in the settlement that the child Pankaj Sharma i.e. defendant no.2 cannot put the photographs of plaintiff and defendant no.1 on social media.
41. In his cross-examination, defendant no.2 has deposed that he does not know the contents of the settlement entered into between his mother and the plaintiff. He has denied that he put the photograph of his mother/defendant no.1 and the plaintiff on Facebook in order to defame the plaintiff or to pressurize him to settle the partition suit filed by him against the plaintiff or to extort money. He has denied that on account of his putting the photographs of plaintiff and defendant no.1 on Facebook, the plaintiff has been defamed in the eyes of general public and has also suffered financial loss. During his cross-examination, defendant no.2 has also volunteered that he had no intention to defame the plaintiff and that he had just put the photographs of the plaintiff and defendant no.1 on Facebook as they are his parents.
42. The said photograph on the Facebook has been exhibited as Ex.PW-1/C (Colly.) which is alleged to be posted from the fake I.D of the son of the plaintiff. The said post depicts the joint Digitally signed by RENU photograph of the plaintiff and defendant no.1, inviting blessings RENU BHATNAGAR BHATNAGAR Date:
2024.09.18 16:41:53 +0530 CS No. 325/18 Satish Kumar Sharma Vs. Sudesh Sharma & Anr Page No.17 of 21 for mom and dad on their 24th anniversary and comments of friends giving congratulations and good wishes.
43. During cross-examination the plaintiff has claimed that his photographs are morphed. But no evidence has been led by the plaintiff in that regard.
44. The plaintiff in his cross-examination has admitted that he has not filed any case against the defendants though in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW-1/1, the plaintiff has claimed that defendants are spreading rumors against the unmarried daughter of the plaintiff by giving false and baseless messages in the society due to this reason the image of the daughter of the plaintiff is down in the society. However, to prove this fact the plaintiff has not led any evidence nor he has deposed about any false and baseless messages being spread by defendants in the society against his daughter. What type of messages were spread by the defendants, is not even disclosed by the plaintiff in his pleadings nor any witness is examined by him to prove his averments in this regard.
45. To prove the defamation, the plaintiff has also examined his brother-in-law (jija) Sh. Dev Dutt Sharma as PW-2. He has deposed that defendant no.2 has created false and baseless messages regarding the relationship between the plaintiff and defendant no.1 and due to this reason the plaintiff and his family members feel shame and are unable to move outside the house and are leading a miserable life.
46. So far as PW-2 is concerned, in his cross-examination he has admitted that plaintiff and defendant no.1 were living in live Digitally signed by RENU RENU BHATNAGAR in relationship, though he was not aware whether defendant no.2 BHATNAGAR Date:
2024.09.18 16:42:00 +0530 CS No. 325/18 Satish Kumar Sharma Vs. Sudesh Sharma & Anr Page No.18 of 21 was born out from the relationship with the plaintiff. He is aware of filing of cases of defendant no.1 against the plaintiff under Section 125 Cr. PC and Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act. He is also aware about factum of settlement entered into between the parties. He is also aware of the partition suit filed by defendant no.2 against the plaintiff. He has admitted that he has never seen the photographs of plaintiff and defendant no.1 on Facebook. He even could not tell as to who told him regarding the photographs of plaintiff and defendant no.1 on Facebook. He has also deposed that he is deposing in the court at the instance of plaintiff Satish Sharma. In his evidence by way of affidavit, he has nowhere mentioned that after seeing the photographs, the reputation of the plaintiff in his eyes has lowered down.
47. Apart from PW-2, no other independent witness has been examined by the plaintiff to prove defamation. No expert has been examined nor any evidence is produced to show that the photographs were morphed, as alleged by the plaintiff.
48. Defendant no.2 is well aware about the relationship of defendant no.1 and the plaintiff. Defendant no.2 has put the photo of his parents being the absolute truth establishing that what was being published was substantially correct. The deposition of the plaintiff and his witness PW-2 also points to the fact that what was published was substantially correct.
49. As is observed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Ram Jethmalani Vs. Subramaniam Swamy (supra), truth or justification, is a complete defense in the case for defamation. Even the fair comment offer protection. The factum of plaintiff Digitally and defendant being in relationship for more than 21 years is an signed by RENU RENU BHATNAGAR BHATNAGAR Date:
2024.09.18 16:42:08 CS No. 325/18 Satish Kumar Sharma Vs. Sudesh Sharma & Anr Page No.19 of 21 +0530 admitted fact which was known to the parties as well as to the relatives of the plaintiff, as is proved by PW-2 by way of his cross-examination. If we draw an analogy from the above judgment, putting photographs of plaintiff and defendant no.1 on Facebook by defendant no.2, cannot be treated as defamation.
50. Accordingly, seeing the evidence brought on record, the deposition of plaintiff and his witness, the documents and other circumstances, in my considered opinion the plaintiff has failed to establish that he is entitled to any damages on account of defamation as compensation. Hence, issue no.1 is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
Issue No. 2 :-
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as claimed? OPP.
51. For grant of permanent inunction, the plaintiff is required to prove that there is some legal right or obligation that exists in his favour. Neither the plaintiff has proved this fact nor balance of convenience lies in his favour. It is also not possible to infer that he will suffer irreparable loss if injunction is not granted in his favour. Accordingly, issue no.2 is also decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
Relief.
52. The plaintiff has categorically failed to establish a case for recovery of damages on account of defamation, also grant for compensation and permanent injunction, against the defendants. Digitally signed by Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed. No order RENU RENU BHATNAGAR BHATNAGAR Date:
as to cost. Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly. File be 2024.09.18 16:42:19 +0530 CS No. 325/18 Satish Kumar Sharma Vs. Sudesh Sharma & Anr Page No.20 of 21 consigned to record room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT On 18th September, 2024 Digitally signed by RENU BHATNAGAR RENU BHATNAGAR Date:
2024.09.18 16:42:30 +0530 (RENU BHATNAGAR) PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KKD COURTS: DELHI CS No. 325/18 Satish Kumar Sharma Vs. Sudesh Sharma & Anr Page No.21 of 21