Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ku. Puja vs Union Of India on 13 May, 2020
Author: Prakash Shrivastava
Bench: Prakash Shrivastava
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE
(S.B.: HON. SHRI JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA)
Writ Petition No. 2415/2019
Ku. Pooja
Petitioner
Versus
Bharat Sangh & others
Respondents
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Rajeev Bhatjiwale learned counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. Bhagyashree Sugandhi learned counsel for
respondents no. 1 & 2.
Shri Akshat Pahadia learned counsel for the respondents
no. 3 & 4/State.
Shri Manish Yadav learned counsel for respondent No. 5.
Shri Avadhesh Polekar learned counsel for respondents
no. 6 & 7.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether approved for reporting :
ORDER
(Passed on 13/5/2020) By this writ petition, the petitioner has claimed compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs from respondents no. 5 to 7 for disclosing the name of petitioner in the news item Annexure P-1.
2/ The case of petitioner is that petitioner had made a report against one Nitin @ Sonu for commission of offence under Section 376(2)(N) and 384 IPC in crime No. 112 of 2016 in 2 police station Aerodrome in which anticipatory bail application was rejected and in the order petitioner is referred as prosecutrix but respondent no. 5 by publishing the news item Annex. P-1 had disclosed the identity of petitioner, hence petitioner is entitled to compensation from respondent no. 5 as also respondents no. 6 & 7 through whom the publication was made.
3/ The preliminary objection of respondents no. 6 & 7 is that criminal case under Section 228A of IPC is already pending and that the news item Annexure P-1 does not relate to the offence of rape.
4/ Having heard the learned counsel for parties and on perusal of the record it is noticed that undisputedly petitioner has filed a complaint against the respondents no. 5 to 7 for offence under Section 228A of IPC in which the JMFC Indore has taken cognizance by order dated 30 th October 2018, therefore, in those proceedings it will be decided if respondents no. 5 to 7 have disclosed the identity of petitioner in the offence under Section 376 of IPC.
5/ Though the stand of respondents no. 5 to 7 is that vide Annexure P-1 publication they had not disclosed the identity of petitioner as a rape victim but this Court is refraining itself from going into that issue because in this regard the complaint for offence under Section 228A IPC has already been registered, wherein the appropriate finding on this issue will be recorded. 6/ So far as the order dated 18/4/2018 passed by Delhi High court in WP (C) No. 3725/2018 in case of Court on its own motion Vs. Union of India and others is concerned, in that case the media house in order to establish their sincerity and 3 bonafide had willingly deposited the amount for use towards compensation to victim and families of victims of sexual violence therefore, the said judgment is of no help to petitioner. 7/ So far as the judgment of the Supreme court in the matter of Nipun Saxena Vs. Union of India reported in AIR Online 2018 SC 826 is concerned, there is no dispute to the proposition that identity of the rape victim cannot be disclosed by publishing the name in print. But in the present case this finding is yet to be recorded by the Court of competent jurisdiction for which cognizance has already been taken. 8/ That apart, counsel for petitioner has also failed to point out any statutory provision for compensation or as to how the amount of compensation claimed in the petition has been ascertained by the petitioner.
9/ In view of the above at this stage no case is made out for passing any order for awarding compensation.
Hence the writ petition is dismissed, however with liberty to petitioner to raise this issue at the appropriate stage, if need so arises.
(Prakash Shrivastava) Judge BDJ Digitally signed by Bhuneshwar Datt Date: 2020.05.13 17:30:14 -07'00'