Bangalore District Court
Disha Shetty D/O Late Ashokananda vs Smt.Ashwini W/O Rajesh Rajaghatta on 22 April, 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (C.C.H.No.25).
Dated: This the 22nd day of April 2017
Present: Sri.Ron Vasudev, B.Com. LL.B, (Spl),
III Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
O.S.No:4598/2016
Plaintiff Disha Shetty D/o Late Ashokananda
Shetty, Aged about 21 years, R/at:
Sharada P.G., J.P. Nagar 2nd Phase, Behind
Woodys Hotel, Near Central Mall,
Bangalore.
(By Sri.SKS. Advocate)
V/S
Defendant Smt.Ashwini W/o Rajesh Rajaghatta, Aged
about 30 years, No.3778/A, 2nd Main, 15th
Cross, Gayathrinagara, Bangalore.
(By Sri.KCV, Advocate)
Date of Institution : 24.6.2016
Nature of Suit : Suit for permanent injunction
Date of Commencement of : 16.11.2016
evidence
Date of pronouncement of : 22/4/2017
Judgment
Total Duration : Year/s Month/s Day/s
- 9 28
(Ron Vasudev),
III Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
2 O.S.No:4598/2016
JUDGEMENT
This is a suit for permanent injunction.
2. The averments of the plaint in brief are that, the plaintiff and defendant are working in Kasthuri TV Channel for past many years and they have to report to one Mr.Rajesh Rajaghatta, their immediate higher officer. That the said Mr.Rajesh Rajaghatta is very social person and he has very good reputation in the society. That the defendant is working as an Anchor in the said TV channel and she being fully impressed by him was somehow successful in persuading him to marry her. However after her marriage, she being a greedy women, suspected her husband and doubted his characters all the time. Whenever the said Rajesh Rajaghatta use to discuss with his subordinate staff, the defendant use to watch his movements to find out whether he loosely behaves with the lady officials. That the defendant is a jealous woman and she never use to tolerate her colleagues if they get more financial benefits than her. Moreover she is expert in editing in the computer programs and system operations, so by using that skill she use to manipulate photos and videos of her colleagues and by sharing them with her friends and enjoy. Due to her said character her marital life was shattered and always she use to quarrel with her husband (Rajesh Rajaghatta) and suddenly use to come to the office to find out whether he is having any affairs with other women. Many a time the plaintiff and other staff members tried to convince her, but she never 3 O.S.No:4598/2016 heeded their words. The defendant used to blackmail the plaintiff by using edited photos and videos by compiling them with her husband/Rajesh Rajaghatta, as a result it appears that he left her. Regarding which the defendant filed a false complaint against her husband, her in-laws and also against this plaintiff in Subramanyapura Police Station at Crime No:105/2016 making unwarranted allegations and enclosed a pen drive containing the alleged videos and photos stated to be showing this plaintiff having affair with said Rajesh Rajaghatta and in compromising position. The conduct and statements of the defendant speaks in volumes about her character. Now the plaintiff apprehends that on the basis of complaint filed by her, the defendant is likely to display the manipulated videos and edited photos in order to defame her. The plaintiff is a spinster and if the defendant indulges in such illegal acts, it would spoil her whole carrier. Wherefore the plaintiff prays for the relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant, her agents, servants or anybody claiming through her from sharing, screening, displaying or exhibiting the manipulated videos and photos in the interest of justice and equity.
3. The defendant appeared and filed written statement and summary of it is as under;
that the present suit is filed with a sole intention to avoid the investigation pending against this plaintiff, thus there is no cause of action to maintain this suit. That without producing any piece of document about the alleged abnormal behavior of 4 O.S.No:4598/2016 this defendant, the plaintiff has made several baseless allegations against her and regarding which this defendant reserves her liberty to initiate defamation case against her. Infact this defendant was reluctant to marry the said Rajesh Rajaghatta but he persistently followed her and pressurized her to marry him, so yielding to his pressure this defendant married him and at the time of her marriage, her parents gave 300 grams of gold and Rs.1,50,000/- cash for clothes to said Rajesh Rajaghatta and performed their marriage in a grand scale at KEB Samudaya Bhavan, near ESI Hospital, Rajajinagar, Bangalore on 12.5.2015 and 13.5.2015. Therefore there is no substance in the plaint allegations. The true fact is that because of the character and conduct of the plaintiff she has been terminated from service by Kasthuri Medias Private Limited on 21.5.2016 itself. It is denied that this defendant was using her skill to edit the computer programs and system operations for creating photos and videos and sharing them with her friends. That absolutely the plaintiff has no right to comment on the matrimonial life of this defendant. Infact at the beginning of her marriage she was leading a happy marital life, but when the plaintiff started moving with said Rajesh Rajaghatta, her marital life was spoiled. Moreover this defendant noticed some photos and videos capturing the intimate scenes of plaintiff and Rajesh Rajaghatta and was very much shocked. When she questioned about the same to her husband, instead of listening to her good words, he advised her to compromise in the life like the plaintiff and to come up, to 5 O.S.No:4598/2016 which this defendant never agreed. For the said reasons Rajesh Rajaghatta used to beat this defendant and tortured her, wherefore the defendant started residing with her parents at Mysuru. Even then on 19.10.2015 the said Rajesh Rajaghatta came along with his brother and parents to the house of this defendant and persuading her brought her back to Bangalore but again continued his illegal acts and misbehaved with her, as a result she filed a complaint in Crime No:105/2016 in Subramanyanagara Police Station, Bangalore and investigation is pending in it. Fearing that investigation and likelihood of unraveling the truth, to stall that investigation somehow, the plaintiff has come to this court. Wherefore the defendant prays to dismiss the suit with costs.
4. Based on the said pleadings following issues are framed:
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that by manipulating, concocting and creating photos and videos of herself with third person the defendant is tarnishing her image?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?
3. What order or decree?6 O.S.No:4598/2016
5. In support of her case plaintiff examined herself as PW1 and got marked three documents. The defendant has not taken interest to adduce evidence on her behalf. Heard the arguments of Sri.SKS, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri.KCV, Advocate for defendant. Perused the pleadings and evidence.
6. My findings on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1 - In the affirmative Issue No.2 - In the affirmative Issue No.3 - As per final order, for the following REASONS Issue No.1 & 2:
7. For the sake of convenience I have taken these two issues simultaneously.
8. The rival submissions of the parties show that both plaintiff and defendant being women, they tirade charges against each other, and according to the plaintiff she is a spinster and defendant being her colleague using her expertise in editing the computer programs and systems and was creating obscene pictures of her with Rajesh Rajaghatta and some other persons to tarnish her image. Thus she seeks to restrain the defendant from indulging in such acts. Per contra the defendant alleges that this plaintiff is one of the cause in her soared matrimonial life and she never indulged in the activities as alleged by the plaintiff.
7 O.S.No:4598/20169. No-doubt in order to show that the defendant has manipulated and concocted obscene photos and videos of her so as to damage her reputation the plaintiff has not produced any document except producing three documents viz; complaint filed by the defendant in Subramanyanagar Police Station Crime No:105/2016 at Ex.P2, FIR issued in respect of it at Ex.P1 and Kannada tabloid "Hai Bangalore" dt.30.6.2016 at Ex.P3. On going through the said documents, especially the Ex.P2 and Ex.P1, because of her alleged sufferance in the hands of her husband, her in-laws and on the alleged role of this plaintiff in having a suspicious relationship with her husband, the defendant filed complaint as per Ex.P2 and while filing that complaint, she also enclosed a pen drive containing the shocking and compromising pictures of plaintiff and Rajesh Rajaghatta. Based on that complaint the jurisdictional police registered the case not only against the said Rajesh Rajaghatta, even against his parents, his brother arraying them as accused No.1 to 4 and on the alleged involvement of this plaintiff in having suspicious relationship with Rajesh Rajaghatta, she was arrayed as accused no.5 and FIR was issued for the offences p/u/s 498A, 354A, 506, 504 and 370 of IPC as well as Sec.3 and 4 of D.P. Act. On page no.3 of her complaint the defendant alleged that she was shocked to see the pen drive wherein this plaintiff was caught pornographically with said Rajesh Rajaghatta.
10. So on the basis of these documents one cannot straight away accept the allegation that this defendant by 8 O.S.No:4598/2016 manipulating the videos and photos wanted to take revenge against this plaintiff in order to protect her matrimonial life. Having made my observation with reference to Ex.P1 and P2, now I turn to Ex.P3. The said tabloid contains an article on this plaintiff and the said Rajesh Rajaghatta and some derogatory remarks are also made regarding her character and conduct. Here also I would say that for publishing such kind of article one cannot say that the defendant is the cause for it or that she got it published to damage the reputation of plaintiff. As elicited in the cross-examination of plaintiff the Printer, Publisher and Editor as well as the Script Writer of that article are not parties to this suit. So on the strength of Ex.P3 it cannot be said that the defendant induced the Printer, Publisher and Writer of that article to publish such defaming article affecting her reputation.
11. However on that score the plaintiff's case cannot be brushed aside altogether. After all what she is seeking is to protect her womanhood and dignity of a woman, particularly when it is stated that she is a spinster. During the arguments referring to Ex.P1 to P3 and lack of any material evidence to constitute the allegations contained in the plaint, Sri.KCV, Advocate for defendant submitted that when plaintiff is not able to demonstrate any illegal act on the part of defendant, no relief can be granted to the plaintiff. It was his submission that by filing this suit and seeking the relief as prayed herein the plaintiff is indirectly trying to put hurdle in the investigation of crime, which is pending before Subramanyanagara Police 9 O.S.No:4598/2016 Station. In accordance with the said submission he also cross- examined her in sufficient length.
12. Denying any such intention to cause hurdle in the investigation of that case, in her cross examination the plaintiff replied that the police officials are free to investigate that complaint filed at Ex.P2 and to ascertain the authenticity of the pen drive. I think this would suffice do any ambiguity that might crop up in the mind of the defendant. The plaintiff seeks the indulgence of this court only to the extent that the alleged manipulated photos and videos containing her pornographic films should not be left open to the so-called social media and thereby affect her life and dignity, including her womanhood irretrievably. Definitely one has to accede to such apprehension. It is very easy to tarnish an image of a person, but difficult to restore it. Particularly in case of a woman, who is yet to be married, if her alleged compromising photos and videos are shared, whether they are genuine or otherwise, one cannot imagine the catastrophe it would cause in the life of such woman. With that intention in my mind and also the absence of any defence evidence, which also plays some role in arriving the final finding on this matter, on the strength and contents of Ex.P2, I find that there is some substance in the allegation of plaintiff and fear expressed by her. When the investigation is under progress it would be totally unjust to leave the things in the hands of the parties and make a person to suffer and then rush to him to rescue.
10 O.S.No:4598/201613. Wherefore I hold that without affecting or causing any impediment in the investigation of Subramanyanagara Police Station in it's Crime No:105/2016, this court can very well come to the rescue of plaintiff, who wants to protect her dignity. In view of the discussion made above I am of the opinion that if injunction is granted as prayed for, definitely it will not affect the defendant in any manner, rather it clothes the plaintiff to maintain her honour. Hence, I answer these issues in the affirmative.
Issue No.3:
14. In the result, I proceed to make the following:
ORDER Suit is decreed without costs.
The defendant is restrained from sharing, screening, displaying or exhibiting the videos and photos of this plaintiff in any manner.
However it is clarified that this order of permanent injunction will not impede in the investigation in respect of Subramanyanagara Police Station Crime No:105/2016 or any other case that may be pending against this plaintiff.11 O.S.No:4598/2016
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcription computerized, then corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 22nd day of April 2017).
(Ron Vasudev), III Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff side:
PW1 Disha Shetty List of documents exhibited for the plaintiff side:
Ex.P1 Certified copy of the FIR Ex.P2 Certified copy of the complaint Ex.P3 Kannada Tabloid "Hai Bangalore" 30.6.16
List of witness examined for the defendant side:
Nil List of documents exhibited for the defendant side: Nil (Ron Vasudev), III Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.