Bangalore District Court
H. Ramegowda vs Lokeshwar on 2 January, 2018
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 2nd day of January, 2018.
PRESENT:
Sri PATIL N`AGALINGANAGOUDA, B.A.,LL.M.,
VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-15),
Bengaluru.
ORIGINAL SUIT No.2808/2009
PLAINTIFFS : 1. H. Ramegowda,
Aged about 66 years,
S/o. Late Hanumanthaiah;
2. R.G. Somashekaragowda,
Aged about 37 years,
S/o. H. Ramegowda.
Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are residing
at Door No.124, 12th 'B'
Main, 6th Block, Rajajinagar,
Bangalore - 560 010.
(By Sri R. Nataraj,Advocate)
-VERSUS-
DEFENDANT : Lokeshwar,
Major,
(Defendant's father's name
is not known to the
plaintiffs),
Working as Police Inspector,
High Grounds Police
Station, Bangalore City.
(By Sri H.S. Chandramouli,
Advocate)
Cont'd..
-2- O.S. No.2808/2009
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Institution of the Suit : 18-04-2009
Nature of the Suit (Suit on : Money Suit
pronote, Suit for declaration
and possession, Suit for injun-
ction etc,)
Date of the commencement : 22-08-2013
of recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 02-01-2018
was pronounced
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Year/s Month/s Day/s
----------------------------------
Total duration : 8 years, 8 months, 14 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
(PATIL NAGALINGANAGOUDA)
VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
An&/- Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant to pass judgment and decree directing the defendant to pay compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- to each of the plaintiffs and to pass judgment and decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from maligning or disseminating any false information about the plaintiffs.
2. The brief facts of the plaint are as under -
Plaintiffs have contended plaintiff No.1 is the father of plaintiff No.2 and plaintiff No.1 is an active member of the Congress Party while plaintiff No.2 is the Cont'd..
-3- O.S. No.2808/2009 Secretary of the Karnataka Youth Congress. It is
contended plaintiff No.2 lodged complaint against the defendant before the Karnataka Lokayukta citing various acts of the defendant in patronizing illegal bars and discos within his jurisdiction. That defendant in reply to this complaint filed a reply contending that plaintiff No.2 was a rowdy sheeter and he was in the habit of demanding free food and liquor from various Five Star Hotels. Defendant also carelessly mentioned that plaintiff No.1 was also a man with criminal bent of mind. Defendant also contended name of plaintiff No.2 was included in the rowdy 'B' register. Investigation Officer, Lokayukta being prejudiced by the statement closed the enquiry.
It is submitted entry of the name of the plaintiff in the rowdy 'B' register is concocted and fabricated by the defendant. Defendant abused his power in including the name of plaintiff No.2 in rowdy 'B' register. Plaintiff No.2 questioned the entry of his name in rowdy 'B' register by filing Writ Petition. Hon'ble High Court disposed of the Writ Petition on 17-12-2008. Thereafter, Writ Appeal was also disposed on 20-03- 2009. It is contended before the Investigation Officer of Lokayukta, defendant carelessly stated plaintiff No.2 is in the habit of demanding free food and liquor from Five Star Hotels and this submission is made without any basis. As a result of this sweeping careless statement of the defendant, the plaintiff No.2 in particular suffered Cont'd..
-4- O.S. No.2808/2009 loss of reputation before the Investigating Officer, Lokayukta. As a matter of fact, defendant went about disseminating false information against the plaintiff No.2 amongst the friends, contemporaries of the plaintiff No.2. Defendant also claimed before them he would ensure that the political life of the plaintiff No.2 is spoiled for ever. Defendant went a step ahead by claiming to be backed by Sri B.S. Yadiyurappa and also used un-parliamentary words against the caste to which the plaintiff No.2 belonged. It is contended as a result of all these acts of the defendant, plaintiff No.2 has suffered tremendous loss of reputation not only in his family, but also amongst friends and relatives. Lastly, plaintiff has contended defendant has claimed before many Congressmen that the plaintiff No.2 who is a son of plaintiff No.1 is a rowdy-sheeter. He ironically mentioned before many senior Congress leaders that "£ÀÆ°£ÀAvÉ zÁgÀ" - thereby defaming plaintiff No.1. With this submission, plaintiffs prayed to decree the suit.
3. On the other hand, in pursuance of summons, defendant appeared through his Counsel and filed written statement. The brief facts of the written statement of the defendant are as under -
Defendant has contended suit of the plaintiff is not tenable either in law or on facts and it is liable to be dismissed in lemine. Defendant has admitted plaintiff No.2 lodged complaint against him before the Cont'd..
-5- O.S. No.2808/2009 Lokayukta. Defendant contended he filed reply and
Vigilance Director on 03-05-2008 passed an order that allegation leveled by the second plaintiff against the defendant are all false and mischievous and file was ordered to be closed which was not challenged before any authority. It is denied entry of the name of the plaintiff in the rowdy 'B' register is concocted and fabricated. Defendant has admitted with regard to filing of Writ Petition and Writ Appeal by the second plaintiff pertaining to entry of his name in rowdy 'B' register. Defendant has denied due to contents of the reply submitted by him to the Investigating Officer of Lokayukta, plaintiff No.2 suffered tremendous loss of reputation. Defendant has denied other allegations made by the plaintiff.
Defendant has contended plaintiff No.2 is facing criminal charges and following cases were registered against him -
a) Cr. No.35/2007 registered by High
Grounds Police under Section 324 of
I.P.C.
b) Cr. No.368/2003 registered by Chandra Layout Police under Sections 353, 506 of I.P.C.
Cont'd..
-6- O.S. No.2808/2009
c) Cr. No.283/2006 registered by Chandra Layout Police under Sections 109, 452, 506(b) and Section 387 of I.P.C.
d) Cr. No.121/2007 registered by Jeevan Bhimanagar Police under Sections 143, 147, 323, 448, 342, 506, 354 read with Section 149 of I.P.C.
It is contended A.C.P., Sheshadripuram having been satisfied with the antecedents of plaintiff No.2 is against peace and tranquility of public and the criminal activities are to be curbed and therefore, passed an order to open rowdy 'B' sheet against plaintiff No.2 by his order dated 24-09-2007 on the basis of report submitted by him. It is contended plaintiff No.2 approached the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ Appeal and Hon'ble High Curt directed plaintiff No.2 to make representation to the Commissioner of Police and thereafter, the Commissioner of Police had passed an order agreeing the opinion expressed and permitted for continuing the name of the plaintiff in the rowdy 'B' register by his order dated 04-04-2009. It is contended defendant in his official capacity has a police officer being the Inspector of Police of High Grounds Police Station has brought to the notice of the concerned authorities regarding illegal activities of the second plaintiff which is part of his duties and all the acts committed are all legal and while discharging his duty to bring all illegal activities to the concerned. Lastly, it Cont'd..
-7- O.S. No.2808/2009 is contended suit is filed only to harass the defendant who has lawfully discharged his official duty and for want of sanction and jurisdiction this suit is to be dismissed. With this submission, defendant prayed to dismiss the suit.
4. On the basis of the above said pleadings of both the sides, this Court has framed the following -
license deed it ha ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendant filed his reply before investigation office of Lokayukta and maligning and disseminating false information against the plaintiffs and he also ironically mentioned before the senior Congress leaders that 'Noolintha dara' etc., as alleged and thereby the defendant caused damage to the reputation of the plaintiffs?
2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are entitled for damages of Rs.2,50,000/- each as sought for?
3. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are entitled for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from maligning or disseminating the false information about the plaintiffs as prayed?
Cont'd..
-8- O.S. No.2808/2009
4. What order or decree?
5. In order to substantiate the averments of the plaint, plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and got documents marked as per Exs.P.1 to P.12 and closed his side.
6. When case posted for defendant's evidence, defendant himself examined as D.W.1 and no documents got marked.
7. I have heard arguments from both the sides. At the time of argument, Advocate for plaintiff and defendant submitted written arguments.
8. My findings on the above Issues are as under -
ISSUE No.1 - Negative;
ISSUE No.2 - Negative;
ISSUE No.3 - Negative;
ISSUE No.4 - As per final order, for the following -
REASONS
9. ISSUE NOs.1 AND 2 : Since both these Issues are inter-related with each other, they are being taken up together for discussion at a stretch in order to avoid repetition of facts.
Cont'd..
-9- O.S. No.2808/2009
10. In the written argument, Advocate for plaintiff has argued plaintiff No.2 being active member in the Congress Party lodged a complaint against the defendant before the Karnataka State Lokayukta citing various acts of the defendant in patronizing illegal bars and discos within his jurisdiction. It is argued while submitting reply, defendant being Inspector of High Grounds Police Station carelessly mentioned name of plaintiff No.2 was included in the rowdy 'B' register and further defendant carelessly mentioned plaintiff No.2 was also a man with criminal bent of mind. It is argued there is no dispute with regard to lodging of complaint by the plaintiff No.2 and it is not in dispute with regard to submission of reply by the defendant. It is argued plaintiff has produced plenty of records to show defendant has acted carelessly and at the out set entering of name of the plaintiff in the rowdy 'B' register is concocted, fabricated by the defendant. Thus, plaintiff No.2 has suffered tremendous loss of reputation not only in his family, but also amongst friends and relatives. With this submission, plaintiff prayed to answer Issue Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff.
11. On the other hand, in the written argument, Advocate for the defendant contended during defendant's service as Inspector, High Grounds Police Station, the then A.C.P. after having been satisfied with that the antecedents of the plaintiff No.2 are against the Cont'd..
- 10 - O.S. No.2808/2009 peace and tranquility of the public and criminal activities passed an order to open rowdy 'B' sheet against plaintiff No.2. Aggrieved by the said order, though plaintiff has approached the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and as per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Commissioner of Police again conducted enquiry and confirmed the order dated 24- 09-2007 and under such circumstances, the suit filed by the plaintiff is not tenable either in law or on facts. It is argued as per Section 170(1) of the Karnataka Police Act, suits or prosecutions in respect of acts done under colour of duty as aforesaid not to be entertained without sanction of the Government. It is argued defendant has no way concerned with the personal matters of the plaintiffs and that he was only discharging his duties during the said period. With this submission, defendant prayed to answer the above said Issues in favour of the defendant.
12. On careful perusal of the oral as well as documentary evidence of both the sides, I am of the opinion that plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove defendant submitted his reply before the Investigating Officer, Lokayukta with an intention to degrade the reputation of the plaintiff. Further, plaintiffs have failed to prove that defendant has submitted false information against the plaintiff and defendant has ironically mentioned before the senior Congress leaders as "£ÀÆ°£ÀAvÉ zÁgÀ". Further, plaintiff have failed to prove Cont'd..
- 11 - O.S. No.2808/2009 acts of the defendant caused damage to the reputation of the plaintiffs. Though plaintiff has produced documents which are marked as per Exs.P.1 to P.12, contents of those documents helpful to the case of the defendant to resist the claim of the plaintiff. Ex.P.1 is the reply submitted by the defendant to the Vigilance Director, Lokayukta on 21-04-2008. As per contents of Ex.P.1, it discloses defendant being Police Inspector of High Grounds Police Station has furnished information with regard to cases registered against Somashekhar @ @ Somegowda who is plaintiff No.2. As per the records, it discloses three criminal cases have been registered against plaintiff No.2 under Crime No.35/2007 of High Grounds Police Station Crime Nos.368/2003, 283/2006 before Chandra Lay-out Police Station. Further, it discloses even said cases have been registered against the plaintiff No.2 for the offences under Sections 324, 353, 506, 109, 387, 452 and 506-B of I.P.C. Entire contents of Ex.P.1 did not disclose anything contrary to the incident happened. Nowhere in Ex.P.1, defendant has submitted reply with an intention to degrade the reputation of the plaintiffs 1 and 2. It discloses he being Police Inspector he has furnished information to the authority concerned. Hence, contents of Ex.P.1 not helpful to the case of the plaintiff to prove the above said Issues.
13. Ex.P.2 is also report submitted by defendant while he was working as Police Inspector, High Grounds Cont'd..
- 12 - O.S. No.2808/2009 Police Station to the Assistant Commissioner, Sheshadripuram Sub-Division. No doubt as per the
said report, defendant has sought permission to enter the names of plaintiff No.2 in rowdy 'B' register, but that itself is not a ground to come to conclusion defendant with malicious intention submitted representation seeking permission to enter the name of the plaintiff No.2 in rowdy 'B' register. On perusal of contents of Ex.P.2, it discloses defendant has assigned reasons on the grounds it is necessary to enter the name of plaintiff No.2 in rowdy 'B' register. Admittedly, defendant is not an authorized person to enter the name of in rowdy 'B' register on his own and he has to seek permission from the higher officer and accordingly he has submitted his report while discharging his duty as per Ex.P.2. It is admitted fact Ex.P.3 is copy of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No.14955/2008. As per contents of Ex.P.3, it disclosed plaintiff No.2 has filed Writ Petition with a prayer to quash the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sheshadripuram on 24-09-2007 and to direct the Police Inspector, High Grounds Police Station to delete his name from the rowdy 'B' register. In the above said order, Hon'ble High Court while disposing the Writ Petition pleased to observe it is very much open to the petitioner i.e., plaintiff No.2 to submit his representation to the jurisdictional competent authority for deleting his name from the rowdy 'B' register within a period of two weeks and Hon'ble High Court has also directed the Cont'd..
- 13 - O.S. No.2808/2009 Assistant Commissioner, Sheshadripuram Police
Station to consider the request of the petitioner for deleting his name from the rowdy 'B' register in the light of his activities entered in the said register. Ex.P.12 is the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner with regard to entering the name of plaintiff No.2 in rowdy 'B' register. Ex.P.4 is copy of the Writ Appeal filed by plaintiff No.2 against the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court as per Ex.P.3. Admittedly, said Writ Appeal was disposed with direction to the Commissioner of Police to enquire into the representation independently not being prejudiced by the earlier proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner of Police. Ex.P.5 is copy of the representation submitted by the plaintiff No.2 to the Police Superintendent, Karnataka Lokayukta dated 29- 04-2008. It is not in dispute that plaintiff No.2 has lodged complaint against defendant No.2 when he was working as Police Inspector, High Grounds Police Station. Ex.P.6 is copy of the F.I.R. in respect of Crime No.368 of Chandra Lay-out Police Station. It discloses on the basis of the complaint filed by one V.K. Murthy, case has been registered against plaintiff No.2. Ex.P.7 is copy of the complaint. Ex.P.8 is the mahazar. Ex.P.9 is 'C' final report. Ex.P.10 is copy of the F.I.R. of Crime No.183/2006 of Chandra Lay-out Police Station registered against plaintiff No.2 and others. Ex.P.11 is copy of the private complaint filed by one T. Seetharam Vaidya against plaintiff No.2 and others. Contents of those documents not helpful to the case of the plaintiff Cont'd..
- 14 - O.S. No.2808/2009 to prove the above said Issues. Merely because 'C'
reports have been filed in respect of the crime registered against plaintiff No.2 is not a ground act of the defendant in furnishing information with regard to registration of the case against plaintiff No.2 is not contrary to the law. At this juncture, I would like to rely the ruling of our Hon'ble High Court reported in ILR 2007 KAR 4851 in a case W.E. Sathyanarayana -versus-
W.S. Vijayakumar. In the above said decision, it is held
- "Closure of criminal case cannot be held as malicious prosecution unless it is shown that the complaint filed by the defendant is false and equitable order is passed by the jurisdictional Magistrate on a clear finding that initiation of the criminal case is based on false complaint." In my considered view, principles laid down in the above said decision is exactly applicable to the case on hand.
14. Apart from this in the cross-examination P.W.1 has categorically admitted some procedures have to be followed before opening rowdy 'B' sheeter. He has admitted rank of the A.C.P. and above is authorized to open rowdy sheeter. Further, he has admitted defendant worked as Police Inspector, High Grounds Police Station when rowdy 'B' sheeter is opened against him. Further, he has admitted though he has preferred Writ Petition and Writ Appeal against order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police with regard to opening of the rowdy sheeter, Hon'ble High Court has Cont'd..
- 15 - O.S. No.2808/2009 not set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police. He pleads ignorance that he has no idea with regard to final order passed by the Commissioner of Police after direction of the Hon'ble High Court for reconsideration of representation. Though he has voluntarily deposed he has preferred appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, but he has not produced any documents before the Court. Further, he has admitted A.C.P., Sheshadripuram has opened rowdy sheeter against him and he has not made him as a party to the present suit. Further, he has deposed on the basis of the information given by the Inspector i.e., the defendant, rowdy sheeter has been opened against him. As I have discussed above, defendant being Inspector of High Grounds Police Station has only furnished information with regard to pending cases against the plaintiff No.2. So, it cannot be termed that defendant with mala fide intention or with an intention to open rowdy sheeter defendant has furnished information as per Ex.P.1. Further, he has admitted the complaint filed by him against the defendant before the Lokayukta police was closed. Though he has voluntarily deposed the said complaint is still pending in enquiry, but he has not produced any documents before the Court. Further, he has also admitted he was in judicial custody pertaining to the case registered against him. He has also admitted one case has been registered against him on the ground that he has pasted M.L.A. Pass to his vehicle. He has also Cont'd..
- 16 - O.S. No.2808/2009 admitted in one of the case registered against him, there was allegation against him, himself along with M.L.A. of Hunagund have asserted Police Constables who are on duty in the Bar and Restaurant. Though he has deposed ironically mentioned before many senior Congress leaders as "£ÀÆ°£ÀAvÉ zÁgÀ", but he has not adduced evidence of any one of the witnesses to prove the above said aspect. In view of the above said discussion, I am of the opinion that plaintiff has miserably failed to prove the above said Issues. More over, evidence of P.W.1 and contents of Exs.P.1 to P.12 not helpful to the case of the plaintiff to prove the above said Issues in their favour.
15. In order to resist the claim of the plaintiff, defendant himself examined as D.W.1. In his evidence, he has specifically deposed he worked as Inspector of Police, High Grounds Police Station. At that time, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sheshadripuram having been satisfied that antecedents of plaintiff No.2 are against peace and tranquility of the public and criminal activities are to be curbed, passed an order to open rowdy 'B' sheeter against plaintiff No.2. Further, he has deposed in his capacity as Police Officer being Inspect of Police of High Grounds Police Station, he has brought to the notice of the concerned authorities regarding the illegal activities of the second plaintiff which is part of his duties. Further, he has deposed he has not made any false statement tarnishing the image Cont'd..
- 17 - O.S. No.2808/2009 and reputation of the plaintiff as alleged in the complaint and on the other hand, he acted bona fide in discharge of his duties. Though D.W.1 cross-examined at length, nothing has been brought on record to disbelieve his evidence. On careful perusal of the cross- examination of D.W.1, no iota of evidence elicited from the mouth of D.W.1 to discard his evidence and to probabilise the case of the plaintiff. In the cross- examination, though he has admitted some of the cases registered against plaintiff No.2 ended in 'C' report and 'B' report, but that itself is not a ground to discard entire evidence of D.W.1, because it is not the case of the plaintiff defendant being Police Inspector have falsely registered case against him. Admittedly, two cases have been registered in Chandra Lay-out Police Station which was not the jurisdiction of the defendant. Even it is not the case of the plaintiff because of false case registered by the defendant against him, concerned authority have opened 'B' rowdy sheeter against him. It is the case of the plaintiff on the basis of the report submitted by the defendant while he was working as Inspector of High Grounds Police Station authority has opened rowdy 'B' sheeter against him. At the cost of repetition, I would like to say whatever the act done by the defendant, it is done in his official capacity.
16. Apart from this, D.W.1 in the written statement as well as in his evidence has specifically deposed as per Section 170(1) of the Karnataka Police Cont'd..
- 18 - O.S. No.2808/2009 Act, in any case or wrong alleged to have been done by a Police Officer by any act done under the colour or in cases of any such duty or authority, a suit shall not be entertained except with the prior sanction of the Government. Further, he has deposed no sanction is obtained and therefore, suit is not tenable and it is liable to be dismissed. In my considered view, contention of the defendant as some water. As I have discussed above, alleged acts of the defendant were in discharge of his official duty, therefore in view of Section 170(1) of the Karnataka Police Act, suit shall not be entertained except with the prior sanction of the Government. Admittedly, plaintiff has not obtained prior permission of the Government to prosecute the case against the defendant. Hence, my answers to above Issues are in negative.
17. ISSUE No.3 : Since plaintiffs have failed to prove material Issue Nos.1 and 2, certainly plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant or maligning or disseminating false information about the plaintiffs. More over, in the cross-examination, P.W.1 has specifically admitted "Defendant of the present case took voluntary retirement." When defendant took voluntary retirement, question of restraining defendant from maligning or disseminating false information about plaintiffs does not arise. Hence, my answer to above Issue is in negative.
Cont'd..
- 19 - O.S. No.2808/2009
18. ISSUE No.4 : For my reasons and discussion on the above Issues, I proceed to pass the following -
ORDER Suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant is hereby dismissed with cost.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to Judgment Writer, transcribed by him, revised by me and after corrections, pronounced in open Court on this the 2nd day of January, 2018.) (PATIL NAGALINGANAGOUDA) VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, An&/- Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
Examined on:
P.W.1 : R.G. Somashekargowda 22-08-2013
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS:
Ex.P.1 : True copy of letter dated 21-04-2008. Ex.P.2 : True copy of letter dated 20-09-2007. Ex.P.3 : Certified copy of order passed in Writ Petition No.14955/2008. Ex.P.4 : Certified copy of order passed in Writ Appeal No.314/2009.
Ex.P.5 : Copy of application submitted to Lokayukta.
Ex.P.6 : Copy of F.I.R.
Cont'd..
- 20 - O.S. No.2808/2009
Ex.P.7 : Copy of complaint.
Ex.P.8 : Copy of mahazar.
Ex.P.9 : Certified copy of Final Report.
Ex.P.10 : Copy of another F.I.R.
Ex.P.11 : Certified copy of Private Complaint in P.C.R. No.17472/2006.
Ex.P.12 : Certified copy of proceedings of A.C.P.
3. WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANTS:
D.W.1 : Lokeshwar 14-03-2017
4.DOCUMENT MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS:
Nil.
(PATIL NAGALINGANAGOUDA) VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, An&/- Bengaluru.
Cont'd..