Delhi District Court
Kartar Singh Nagar vs Smt. Anita Jha on 18 January, 2023
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-03
EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI.
Presided by : SH. Rajesh Kumar
CS No. 3164/16
KARTAR SINGH NAGAR
S/O SHRI NATHU SINGH,
R/O 184, VILLAGE-KHICHRIPUR,
DELHI, ...........PLAINTIFF
Versus
SMT. ANITA JHA,
W/O SHRI SHYAM CHANDRA JHA,
R/O CA-48, EAST VINOD NAGAR,
DELHI ............DEFENDANT
Date of Institution : 19.08.2016
Date of Reserving Order : 07.01.2023
Date of order : 18.01.2023
JUDGMENT
SUIT FOR DAMAGES OF RS.10,00,000/-
BRIEF FACTS By way of present judgement, this court shall adjudicate upon the suit for damages of Rs.10,00,000/-.
Kartar Singh Nagar Vs. Smt. Anita Jha CS No. 3164/16 Page No.1/15CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF AS PER PLAINT Succinctly, the necessary facts for just adjudication of the present suit as stated in the plaint are as under:
1. Plaintiff is a respectable person of the locality and the plaintiff has been residing in the area of village Khichripur, Delhi since his birth.
The forefathers of the plaintiff were the Zamindars of the area and were wealthy rich person. The plaintiff has also generated a good reputation in the area. Besides it, the plaintiff is a retired Government Servant from Delhi Development Authority from the post of Assistant. The wife of the plaintiff is also a Govt. Servant working with MTNL having key post as Section Officer in the Department. The defendant is also the resident of the same locality in which the plaintiff has been residing and were known to the plaintiff. In the year 2008 the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.8,30,000/- from the plaintiff as friendly loan and at the time of raising loan, the defendant had assured the plaintiff to repay the same within a period of one year. When the plaintiff demanded his money back from the defendant after the expiry of the stipulated period of one year, the defendant not only refused to repay the said loan amount rather extended threat to teach him a lesson to him for demanding his money back. Thereafter the defendant started making false complaints against the plaintiff with the police and other authorities.
2. It is further submitted that the defendant had also made several false complaints against the innocent persons of the locality. When the defendant did not succeed in the her malafide designs in grabbing the money of the plaintiff, the defendant lodged a false FIR with the police of P.S. Kalyan Puri, with regard to theft of cheque. After conducting the Kartar Singh Nagar Vs. Smt. Anita Jha CS No. 3164/16 Page No.2/15 inquiry into the matter, the police had come to the conclusion that the complaint is false in order to blackmail the plaintiff.
3. The defendant succeeded in getting a false case registered against the plaintiff, his son Vikram Nagar and one of his relative Ishwar Singh Nagar with police of P.S. Kalyanpuri vide FIR No. 307/2008 u/s 323/341/325/506/34 IPC with the allegations that on 12.10.2008 the day was fixed for settlement with the plaintiff regarding some money transaction but the plaintiff did not come. The defendant further alleged that on 13.08.2008 the defendant was coming from Khichripur and at about 10.30 p.m. when the defendant reached behind the house of the plaintiff, the plaintiff, Ishwar Singh and his son Vikram surrounded the defendant and gave beating to the defendant and they poured K. Oil on the defendant. In the above case, plaintiff and his son and Ishwar Singh were arrested by the police and they had to remain in Judicial Custody for about 2 days. Thereafter the police filed the challan before the concerned court and the trial of the above case was conducted by the court. After recording the evidence and hearing the final arguments, the concerned court of Shri Sonu Agnihotri, Ld. ACMM, KKD Courts, Delhi has been pleased to acquit the plaintiff, his son and Ishwar Singh from all the charges.
4. It is also submitted that in order to grab the money of the plaintiff and in execution of her threat to teach a lesson to the plaintiff, the defendant got registered the above false and bogus case after knitting a false story, against the plaintiff, his son Vikram Singh and Ishwar Singh. The defendant got registered a false case against the plaintiff, his son and Ishwar Singh which made them to go in judicial custody for two days, the defendant caused physical and social harassment, torture, defemation and Kartar Singh Nagar Vs. Smt. Anita Jha CS No. 3164/16 Page No.3/15 humiliation to the plaintiff. The prestige of the plaintiff and his family has been lowered in the eyes of the public and the people have started looking the plaintiff and other family members with doubt and are treating like the criminals. The worthy prestige of the plaintiff and his family, which has been earned by the good deeds of the forefathers of the plaintiff, has been spoiled due to the false criminal case, got registered by the defendant against the plaintiff, his son and his relative Ishwar Singh.
5. The plaintiff is not the isolate example of false implication in some criminal cases by the defendant, besides the plaintiff, his son and Ishwar Singh, the plaintiff has made other innocent persons as victim by getting the false case registered against them. Earlier to it, the defendant also filed a criminal case against the plaintiff, Kallu Qureshi, Shatrughan Dass regarding abduction, rape, robbery etc. The defendant had filed a criminal case in the court of Ld. ACMM, East District, KKD Courts, Delhi against the Shatrughan Dass s/o late Shri Jiya Lal, ASI Shyam Lal and SI Harpal Singh with regard to the commission of offences u/s 376/384/342/452/506/511/34 IPC and later on after taking money from them she withdrew the said case from the court of Shri Satish Kumar Arora, ld. MM, East, KKD Courts, Delhi vide order dated 09.11.2010. The defendant had also filed a criminal case in the concerned court of P.S. Mandawali with regard to the commission of the offences u/s 323/354/506 IPC against one Izhar Khan S/o late Shri Sardar Khan and one Imran son of Shri Izahar Khan and later on after extorting money from them, she withdrew the same from the Mahila Court, East, KKD Courts, Delhi vide order dated 22.11.2011. The defendant had also got registered a case u/s 3 & 4 of PC & MCS Act against Izhar, Ruksana and Imran vide FIR No. Kartar Singh Nagar Vs. Smt. Anita Jha CS No. 3164/16 Page No.4/15 684/06 with P.S. Kalyanpuri. She also got registered a false case against Shri Kallu Qureshi and Answar u/s 323/452/506/34 IPC with P.S. Kalyanpuri vide FIR No. 184/09. She also got registered a false case with P.S. Indira Puram Ghaziabad against Munna Khan, Salim Khan etc. for commission of offences u/s 147/323/354 IPC vide FIR No. 190/07. The defendant also got registered a false case u/s 323/354/506/34 IPC with P.S. Mandawali vide FIR No. 559/06.
6. It is further submitted that since the defendant is in habit of making false complaints against the innocent people of the area in order to extort money from them and the plaintiff has become the victim of the trap of the defendant to extort money from him. Initially she borrowed a huge amount of Rs.8,30,000/- from the plaintiff and when he demanded his money back, she implicated the plaintiff, his son Vikram Singh and his relative Ishwar Singh in the above case falsely and caused mental, physical, social and economic loss to them. Due to the act of getting false case registered agaist plaintiff and his son and relative, as stated above, the plaintiff had made to suffer financially as plaintiff had to spend a huge amount in getting bail in the above case as well for the trial of the said case. The plaintiff also suffered a great irreparable loss of the prestige of the family and the prestige of the plaintiff and his family has been lowered by the defendant by getting the above case registered. The plaintiff has also suffered a great loss of mental and physical harassment, humiliation, torture and agony when he was arrested by the police in the said case and remained in judicial custody for 2 days and facing the trial for more than 6 years. The defendant had launched a malicious prosecution by getting registered a false and bogus case, above stated, against the plaintiff, his son and relative and Kartar Singh Nagar Vs. Smt. Anita Jha CS No. 3164/16 Page No.5/15 finally the case above mentioned has been disposed of by the court concerned by acquitting the plaintiff and other accused persons. As such the defendant is liable to pay damages to the plaintiff to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- for malicious proceedings and damages.
7. The plaintiff got served a legal notice to the defendant through her counsel vide notice dated 07.06.2016 calling the defendant to pay the compensation to the plaintiff to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- but defendant did not reply the same. It is therefore requested that defendant be directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards damages for malicious proceedings, causing mental, physical and financial loss to the plaintiff. Hence, the present suit.
CASE OF THE DEFENDANT AS PER WRITTEN STATEMENT.
8. Upon issuance of summons, defendant appeared and filed written statement on behalf of defendant. It is contended that suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. Plaintiff has not approached before the court with clean hands and suppressed the material facts. It is submitted that defendant had lodged her complaint before concern police station and after due investigation the concern police officer lodged FIR and prosecuted the case by the State. The defendant had never received the legal notice dated 07.06.2016 as mentioned in the plaint. The plaintiff has not impleaded the concern police officer as a necessary party instead of the complainant, hence, the present suit is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder and mis-joinder of party.
9. The plaintiff had filed several suit against the defendant and Kartar Singh Nagar Vs. Smt. Anita Jha CS No. 3164/16 Page No.6/15 other persons and plaintiff is always involved in litigations. No closure report has been filed in any FIR. The defendant narrated the whole true facts before concened police officials and after preliminary eqnuiry section 325 IPC was added later on after satisfaction of police official. Remaining proceedings were not done by the defendant. The criminal case registered u/s 376/384/342/452/506/511/34 IPC was withdrawn from the court of Shri Satish Kumar Arora, the then Ld. MM after mediation by closed persons of the society and plead guilty by the accused before the society. Defendant further denied all the other allegations as alleged by the plaintiff in his plaint. Hence, defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.
10. At the outset, it is pertinent to mention that summons were issued to the defendant and defendant has appeared through her ld. Counsel. Defendant had filed her written statement and issues were framed in the matter and matter was listed for PE. Plaintiff examined four witnesses and defendant duly cross examined all the witnesses. Matter was listed for DE vide order dated 27.07.2019. Thereafter, defendant had stopped appearing in the present matter. Court notice was also issued to defendant vide order dated 02.12.2021. Defendant was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 25.05.2022. PE was closed vide separate statement vide order dated 07.01.2023.
ISSUES
11. Having heard the Ld. Counsels and upon completion of pleadings, the Ld. Predecessor of this court had framed the following issues vide order dated 04.05.2017:
Kartar Singh Nagar Vs. Smt. Anita Jha CS No. 3164/16 Page No.7/151. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties as alleged by the defendant?OPD
2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form as alleged by the defendant? OPD
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages to the tune of Rs. 10 lakhs as claimed by the plaintiff?OPP
4. Relief.
12. The issues were framed on 04.05.20017, thereafter the matter was fixed for PE. On behalf of the Plaintiff, four witnesses were examined. Sh. Kartar Singh-PW-1, Shri Virendra Kumar-PW-2, ASI-Chander Veer Singh-PW3 and Ct.Tej Pal Singh-PW4 respectively.
13. PW-1-Shri Kartar Singh has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Which is EX.P-1 and relied upon documents i.e.
1. Ex. PW1/A- is pension book (OSR).
2. Ex. PW1/B- the copy of FIR No. 307/08
3. Ex. PW1/C- certified copy of bail bond of Kartar Singh.
4. Ex. PW1/D- certified copy of judgment dated 08.09.2015.
5. Ex. PW1/E-complaint dated 12.01.2010 is de-exhibited and is marked as Mark-A.
6. Ex. PW1/F- the copy of complaint dated 27.09.2010 filed by Anita Jha against the Shatrugan Dass and others is de-exhibited and is marked as Mark-B.
7. Ex. PW1/G- order dated 09.11.2010 passed by Shri Satish Kumar Arora, MM, KKD Court Delhi is de-exhibited and is marked as Mark-C. Kartar Singh Nagar Vs. Smt. Anita Jha CS No. 3164/16 Page No.8/15
8. Ex.PW1/H- copy of statement Anita Jha dated 09.11.2010 is de- exhibited and is marked as Mark-D.
9. Ex.PW1/I statement of Anita Jha dated 22.11.2011 is de-exhibitted and is marked as Mark-E.
10. Ex.PW1/J-orders passed by Mahila Court East vide order dated 22.11.11 is de-exhibited and is marked as Mark-F.
11. Ex.PW1/K-1- copy of FIR no. 184/09 is de-exhibited and is marked as Mark-L.
12. Ex. PW1/M- copy of FIR No. 559/06 is de-exhibited and is marked as Mark-J.
13. Ex. PW1/N copy of notice dated 07.06.2016.
14. Ex. PW1/O- original postal receipt.
15. Ex. PW1/P- original courier receipt.
14. PW-2- Shri Virendra Kumar, Senior Secretariat Assistant, DDA, Office at INA, Vikas Sadan, Delhi. He is a summoned witness. He produced the documents related to pension of Shri Kartar Singh Nagar s/o Shri Nathu Singh Nagar which is already Ex. PW1/A (OSR).
15. PW-3 ASI Chander Veer Singh, No. 74 East, Presently posted at P.S. Kalyanpuri. He is a summoned witness. He produced the FIR No. 684/06 was registered at P.S. Kalyanpuri on 24.11.2006 with a complainant Anita Jha w/o Shyam Chand Jha. FIR which was earlier marked B is now exhibited as Ex. PW3/A (OSR).
16. PW-4-Ct. Tej Pal Singh, No. 1291 East, presently posted as P.S. Mandawali. He is summoned witness. He produced FIR no. 559/06 was registered as P.S. Mandawali on 14.11.2006. This FIR which was earlier Mark-J is now exhibited as Ex. PW4/A (OSR).
Kartar Singh Nagar Vs. Smt. Anita Jha CS No. 3164/16 Page No.9/15PE was closed vide separate statement recorded on 07.01.2023 and matter was fixed for Final Arguments.
EX-PARTE FINAL ARGUMENTS.
17. Ex-parte final arguments heard from the Ld. counsel for plaintiff.
ISSUES WISE FINIDINGS
18. I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made on behalf of plaintiff, considered the relevant provisions of the law, pleadings of both the parties, testimonies of PW1,PW-2, PW3 and PW-4 and material on record. The issue wise finding is as under:
19. Issue No.1.
Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties as alleged by the defendant?OPD The onus to prove this issue is upon the defendant. It is contended by the defendant in her written statement that present suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary party as plaintiff has not impleaded conerned police officer as a necessary party. The defendant in her written statement, has nowhere mentioned as to why the concnerned police office was necessary party to the suit. The plaintiff has not claimed in his plaint that concerned police official who conducted the investigation in the case FIR No. 307/08, P.S. Kalyanpuri was responsible for malacious prosecution of the plaintiff. Perusal of the judgment Ex. PW1/D passed by Ld. CMM in case FIR No. 307/08, P.S. Kalyanpuri shows that the plaintiff Kartar Singh Nagar Vs. Smt. Anita Jha CS No. 3164/16 Page No.10/15 was acquitted because there were material contradictions between various versions of the complainant (defendant in the present case) and no where in the judgment it is mentioned that concerned police official conducted the investigation in a bad manner in order to falsely implicate the plaintiff. Moreover, the police registered the case at the instance of the complainant (defendant herein), conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet before the concerned court. The concerned trial court did not point out any fault in the investigation conducted by police official. Hence, this court is of the view that concerned police official was not the necessary party to the suit. Moreover, defendant has not led any evidence to disprove that present suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of party. Since the testimony of PW-1 is corroborated by the documentary evidence and tesmonies of PW2, PW3 and PW4, has remained unrebutted, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of plaintiff's witnesses. In view of unrebutted and unchallenged oral and documentary evidence led by plaintiff, this court is of the opinion that the defendant has not been able to prove that the present suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary party. Hence, the issue no.1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
20. Issue no. 2.
Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form as alleged by the defendant? OPD The onus to prove this issue is upon the defendant. Defendant has submitted in the written statement that present suit is not maintainabile. The defendant has not adduced any documentary evidence to prove that suit is not maintainable. Even, defendant has stopped appearing in the matter.
Kartar Singh Nagar Vs. Smt. Anita Jha CS No. 3164/16 Page No.11/15Thus, defendant has not led any evidence to disprove that present suit is not maintainable. Since the testimony of PW-1 is corroborated by the documentary evidence and testimonies of PW-2, PW3 and PW4, has remained unrebutted, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW-
1. In view of unrebutted and unchallenged oral and documentary evidence led by plaintiff, this court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has been able to prove that present suit is maintainable. Hence, the issue no.2 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
21. Issue no.3.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages to the tune of Rs. 10 lakhs as claimed by the plaintiff?OPP The onus to prove this issue is upon the plaintiff and in order order to prove his case, plaintiff has relied upon above mentioned documents. In a suit for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must prove (1) that the defendant prosecuted him, and (2) that the prosecution ended in the plaintiff's favour, and (3) that the prosecution lacked reasonable and probable cause, and (4) that the defendant acted maliciously. Plaintiff claims that case FIR No.307/08, P.S. u/s 323/341/325/506/34 IPC was got registered by the defendant in order to fasely implicate the plaintiff, his son Vikram Nagar and his relative Ishwar Singh Nagar in order to avoid repayment of a sum of Rs.8,30,000/- which the defendant has borrowed from the plaintiff. Plaintiff also claims that at the instance of the defendant, the malicious prosecution of the plaintiff was conducted due to which the plaintiff has to suffer financially as the plaintiff had to spend a sum in getting bail as well as for trial of case. Plaintiff also claims that the plaintiff suffered a great irreparable loss of prestige of family as the pretige of the Kartar Singh Nagar Vs. Smt. Anita Jha CS No. 3164/16 Page No.12/15 family has been lowered in the society. The plaintiff also claims that plaintiff suffered a great loss of physical and mental harassment, humiliation, torture and agony when he was arrested by the police in the said case, remained in judicial custody for two days and faced trial for more than 6 years. During cross examination of plaintiff/PW-1-Kartar Singh, no questions were asked on behalf of defendant, as to how the prosecution conducted against the plaintiff at the instance of the defendant in case FIR No. 307/08, P.S. Kalyanpuri, was not malicious. The burden to prove that the prosecution conducted against the plaintiff at the instance of the defendant as malicious and in order to prove the same, the plaintiff has filed copy of judgment dated 08.09.2015 passed by ld. CMM and other documents. On perusal of the judgment, it is evident that case FIR No.307/08, P.S. Kalyanpuri was registered at the instance of the defendant, however, the accused persons in the said case were acquitted. The primary ground for acquiting the plaintiff in the said case, was that there were importent and material contradictions between various versions of the complainant herself vis a vis other witnesses and the concerned trial court observed that version of the complainant ( defendant herein) does not inspire confidence, back ground of the incident appears to be hazy one and medical examination of the complainant dated 14.10.2008 speaking for itself, it can be said that the state has failed to prove guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. In view of above observation, it can be concluded that the plaintiff was prosecuted in the aforesaid case maliciously at the instance of complainant (defendant herein). It is true that initially the burden to prove that the plaintiff has been maliciously prosecuted at the instance of defendant, was upon the plaintiff, and in view of above findings, it can be Kartar Singh Nagar Vs. Smt. Anita Jha CS No. 3164/16 Page No.13/15 concluded that the plaintiff has discharged his burden. The onus now shifts upon the defendant to disprove the same but on perusal of cross examination of PW-1, it is evident that no questions were asked on behalf of the defendant to disprove the fact that the plaintiff has been maliciously prosecuted at the instance of the defendant. Moreover, defendant has stopped appearing in the matter. Thus, defendant has not led any evidence to disprove that plaintiff has been maliciosly prosecuted at the instance of defendants. Since the testimony of PW-1 is corroborated by the documentary evidence and testimonies of PW-2, PW3 and PW4, has remained unrebutted, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW-
1. In view of unrebutted and unchallenged oral and documentary evidence led by plaintiff and in view of above discussion, this court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has been able to prove that defendant had lodged a malicious prosection against the plaintiff by getting registered afoersaid case.
22. As far as damage caused by the defendant in filing the aforesaid malicious prosection is concerned, it is evident from the record that the plaintiff had to remain in judicial custody for two days and had to face trial for more than 6 years. The plaintiff must have incurred expenditure in getting the bail and defending his case in the court of law. There is no reason to doubt that the plaintiffs reputition has sufferred because of the said malicious prosection brought by the defendant. However, there is no evidence to show as what would have been spent on legal expenses by the plaintiff but taking into consideration the status of the plaintiff and looking into the allegations against the plaintiff, which could not be proved, certainly the reputation of the plaintiff would have suffered Kartar Singh Nagar Vs. Smt. Anita Jha CS No. 3164/16 Page No.14/15 and also keeping in view that the plaintiff was in judicial custody for two days and have to face lenghty trial for 6 years, this court is of the view that the plaintiff is entitled to damages as prayed by him. Hence, the issue no.3 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Relief.
19. For the reasons recorded above, the plaintiffs are found to be entitled to the following reliefs:
(a ) A decree for damages is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, and defendant is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards damages malicious proceeding, causing mental, physical and financial loss to the plaintiff.
(b) A decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room. Digitally signed
by RAJESH
RAJESH KUMAR
Date:
KUMAR 2023.01.18
15:04:56
+0530
Typed to the dictation directly, (Rajesh Kumar)
corrected and pronounced in Additional District Judge-03,
open court on 18.01.2023 East/KKD Courts, Delhi.
Kartar Singh Nagar Vs. Smt. Anita Jha CS No. 3164/16 Page No.15/15