Delhi District Court
Swami Chakrapani vs . Sh. Mukesh Etc. on 21 May, 2009
Page No. 1 Suit No. 1636/2008.
Swami Chakrapani vs. Sh. Mukesh etc.
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJ KUMAR : ADMINISTRATIVE
CIVIL JUDGEcum ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLER :
(NORTH) DELHI.
In Re : Suit No. 1636/2008.
Old Suit No. 477/2004.
Swami Chakrapani
Chela Sh. B. Lal,
Shiv Mandir Yamuna Ghat
Wazirabad, Delhi. Plaintiff.
Versus.
1.Sh. Mukesh, S/o Not known Working & posted as Sub Inspector of Delhi Police, Police Station Timarpur, Delhi.
2. Sh. Bablir R/o Sharurpur Kalan, S/o Not known Working & posted as Constable of Delhi Police, Police Station Timarpur, Delhi. Defendants. Date of Institution of Suit : 22.12.2003.
Date on which Order was reserved : 02.05.2009. Date of Pronouncement of Order : 21.05.2009.
Contd...
Page No. 2 Suit No. 1636/2008.
Swami Chakrapani vs. Sh. Mukesh etc.
JUDGMENT.
The facts in brief necessary for the disposal of present suit for recovery of Rs. 2,65,000/ on account of damages on account of defamation as stated by the plaintiff in the plaint are that the plaintiff is enjoying a very good respect and reputation amongst his followers and public at large in Delhi and is having the Ashram at the aforesaid address and the said Ashram is registered for the last 20 years. It has been further submitted that the said Ashram is involved in the activities of Yoga and Character building. It has been further submitted that plaintiff is also leading spiritual life and he has got disciples and he has commended appreciation number of times. It has been further alleged that both the defendants under the colour of their duties and in utter misuse thereof, without any rhyme or reason and on the false pretext of some complaint regarding construction of some temple in the said Ashram visited the plaintiff on 23.09.2003 and asked the plaintiff regarding the said construction and both the Contd...
Page No. 3 Suit No. 1636/2008.
Swami Chakrapani vs. Sh. Mukesh etc. defendants without any authority of law took the search of the said Ashram. It has been further alleged that both the defendants insulted and humiliated the plaintiff in the presence of his followers and public persons and used abusive and derogatory language against the plaintiff which caused defamation of the plaintiff. It has been further alleged that the said defendants dismantled the Canopy under which cow of the plaintiff used to be tied because of which the said cow died on 27.09.2003. The calf of the cow also died some time in the Ist week of October 2003. It has been further alleged that on 27.09.2003 defendants illegally removed the Shiv Parivar to unknown place and hut the religious sentiments and dismantled the walls of the Ashram. It has been further alleged that defendants also snatched the mobile phone of the plaintiff and broke the same and took the plaintiff to the police station. It has been further alleged that in the police station the plaintiff was maltreated, humiliated and used derogatory and abusive language against the plaintiff in the presence of his followers and Contd...
Page No. 4 Suit No. 1636/2008.
Swami Chakrapani vs. Sh. Mukesh etc. disciples. It has been further submitted that the plaintiff got served a legal demand notice under Section 140 of Delhi Police Act vide notice dated 30.09.2003 through his counsel but despite service defendants failed to pay the damages claimed in the said notice. It has been prayed that a decree for damages for Rs. 2,65,000/ be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant with costs of the suit and pendentlite interest @ 2% per month till the realization of the decretal amount.
2. Joint Written Statement has been filed on behalf of both the defendant taking therein various preliminary objections, such as that the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed being filed with malafide intention of pressurizing and blackmailing the defendants who are police officers; that the plaintiff is a public land grabber and wants to ensure that the defendants and other members of the police force should remain mute spectators towards his activities; that the suit is liable to be rejected u/O 7 Rule 11 CPC; that the suit is bad for Contd...
Page No. 5 Suit No. 1636/2008.
Swami Chakrapani vs. Sh. Mukesh etc. nonjoinder of necessary parties and that the suit is liable to be dismissed under Section 138 & 139 of the Delhi Police Act.
On merits, it has been submitted that the alleged Ashram is situated on public land which the plaintiff is occupying illegally. It has been further submitted that the defendants have no concern with the activities of the plaintiff. It is denied by the defendants that they ever visited the plaintiff and took search of the Ashram. It has been further stated that the alleged Ashram is situated on government land (Goan Sabha) and the area SDM had passed order on 30.10.2002 for the removal of encroachment on the said land. It has been further alleged that the plaintiff alongwith his associates was earlier also arrested on 29.10.2002 u/s 107 & 151 CrPC at Police Station Timarput vide DD No. 16 A when he was trying to encroach upon public land and plaintiff was again brought to PS Timarpur on 23.09.2002 u/s 65 D.P. Act. It has been further denied that defendants ever insulted and humiliated the plaintiff. It has also been denied that Contd...
Page No. 6 Suit No. 1636/2008.
Swami Chakrapani vs. Sh. Mukesh etc. defendants dismantled the canopy under which the cow of plaintiff was being tied. Using of abusive and threatening language against the plaintiff on 27.09.2003 or on any other date has been denied by the defendants. It has been further submitted that in fact on 23.09.2003 the plaintiff was trying to construct temple at the said land when he was stopped by HC Santosh Kumar and was brought to the police. Snatching and breaking of mobile of plaintiff has also been denied. It has been further submitted that the notice dated 30.09.2002 was false and illegal and the defendants have no such liability. Rest of the contents of the plaint have been denied by the defendants in the Written Statement and it has been prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed.
3. Replication to the Written Statement of defendants has also been filed by the plaintiff, denying the contents of the Written Statement filed by the defendants and reiterating and reaffirming the contents of the plaint.
Contd...
Page No. 7 Suit No. 1636/2008.
Swami Chakrapani vs. Sh. Mukesh etc.
4. From the pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 25.05.2004, the following issues were framed :
ISSUES:
(1) Whether the suit is without any cause of action? OPD. (2) Whether the suit is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties? OPD. (3) Whether the suit is not maintainable in view of provisions of Ss.
138 and 139 of Delhi Police Act? OPD.
(4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the amount claimed and interest if so at what rate? OPP.
(5) Relief.
5. In order to prove their respective cases, the plaintiff has examined as many as two witnesses whereas the defendants have examined as many as five witnesses. The detailed testimonies of these witnesses shall be discussed in the later part of this judgment.
Contd...
Page No. 8 Suit No. 1636/2008.
Swami Chakrapani vs. Sh. Mukesh etc.
6. I have carefully gone through the entire material on record and have heard the rival submissions as advanced by both the Ld. counsels for the parties. I have also gone through the written arguments filed on record by both the parties.
My issuewise findings on the issues framed in the present suit are as under :
ISSUE Nos. 1, 2 and 3 : The facts of the present suit are within a narrow compass. The plaintiff has alleged in the plaint that he has been enjoying a very good respect and reputation amongst his followers and public at large and is having his Ashram at the address mentioned in the plaint and the said Ashram was registered for the last 20 years. The plaintiff has further stated that the Ashram of the plaintiff is concerned with the activities of Yoga and character building. It has been further submitted that the plaintiff is leading a spiritual life and he has got a number of disciples and he has also got various commendation Contd...
Page No. 9 Suit No. 1636/2008.
Swami Chakrapani vs. Sh. Mukesh etc. certificates such as from Ms. Kiran Bedi, ACP of Delhi Police (as she was the then). It has been further alleged that the defendants at the relevant time were posted as SubInspector and Constable in Delhi Police at Police Station Timarpur and both of them in utter misuse of their position without any rhyme or reason on false pretext of some complaint concerning construction of some temple in the said Ashram, visited the plaintiff on 23.09.2003 misbehaved with the plaintiff. It has been further alleged by the plaintiff that his reputation was being lowered down in the general public at large and hence the present suit for malicious prosecution.
On the other hand, in the Written Statement filed on record by the defendant, the defendants have taken the stand that the suit of the plaintiff has been filed with malafide intention to pressurize and to blackmail the defendants being the police officials. It has been further submitted that the plaintiff is a public land grabber and the plaintiff wants to ensure that the defendants and the other members of Contd...
Page No. 10 Suit No. 1636/2008.
Swami Chakrapani vs. Sh. Mukesh etc. the police force should remain mute spectators towards the activities of the plaintiff. It has been further alleged that the Ashram is situated at the public land having been illegally occupied and the plaintiff has filed the suit and took other frivolous pleas.
The present suit is a suit for malicious prosecution in which the plaintiff has alleged certain misdeeds on the part of the defendant. The defendants have led the evidence of as many as five witnesses but in the entire evidence led by the defendants and in the entire crossexamination of the witnesses examined by the plaintiff, Ld. counsel for the defendants has utterly failed to bring out anything on record to show that the suit of the plaintiff is without any cause of action. Ld. counsel for the defendants has also failed to show as to how the suit of the plaintiff is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties. As such, I am of the opinion that the allegations of the defendants remains only bald allegations without any substance.
Contd...
Page No. 11 Suit No. 1636/2008.
Swami Chakrapani vs. Sh. Mukesh etc. So far as issue no. 3 is concerned, the defendants have taken an objection that the suit is not maintainable in view of provisions of Sections 138 and 139 of Delhi Police Act. In the entire evidence led by the defendants, none of the witnesses of the defendants have uttered even a single word as to how the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in view of provisions of Sections 138 and 139 of Delhi Police Act.
In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that the defendants have utterly failed to issue nos. 1, 2 and 3, the onus to prove of which was upon the defendants. As such, all the said three issues, i.e. issue nos. 1, 2 and 3 are hereby decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. ISSUE No. 4 : The facts of the case have been discussed herein above in detail. Now let us discuss the evidence led by both the parties in respect of their stands.
Contd...
Page No. 12 Suit No. 1636/2008.
Swami Chakrapani vs. Sh. Mukesh etc. Plaintiff has examined himself as PW 1 and has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit, reiterating and reaffirming the stands taken by him in the plaint. PW 1 has proved on record various documents such as legal and mandatory notice u/s 140 of D.P. Act as Ex. PW 1/1 and carbon copy of the same as Ex. PW 1/2, UPC receipt as Ex. PW 1/3, certificate of service of notice upon the defendants as Ex. PW 1/4, original receipt dated 27.09.2003 for removal of dead body of cow as Ex. PW 1/5, carbon copy of complaint made to ACP, Civil Lines dated 18.11.2003 as Ex. PW 1/6, the copy of writing by the President of Gram Sabha of Wazirabad, Gokulpur Shiv Mandir concerning meeting held on 02.11.1983 as Ex. PW 1/7, the report dated 11.10.1985 by ASI Mahavir Singh of P.S. Civil Lines as Ex. PW 1/8, the original registration certificate of the SewaYoga Ashram as Ex. PW 1/9, the original Maan Patra dated 20.12.2002 by Anti Corruption Organization in the name of the plaintiff as Ex. PW 1/10 to PW 1/12 and the photocopy of the letter by the then Commissioner Contd...
Page No. 13 Suit No. 1636/2008.
Swami Chakrapani vs. Sh. Mukesh etc. of Delhi to Sh. Ram Chand Paswan dated 13.03.2003 as Mark A, the photocopy of letter by Sh. Jagdish Chander, Deputy Director to the Manager, Sewa Ashram Yamuna Ghat as Mark B and the photocopy of the letter dated 25.09.1985 by Sh. P.K. Singh the then Zonal Engineer Water Civil Lines, Delhi to the Manager of Sewa Yoga Ashram as Mark C. The relevant part of crossexamination of PW 1 reads as under :
" It is correct that there is no registered sale deed by the gram sabha in favor of seva yogashram. The construction raised on the said land consist of one big rooms, one kitchen and one toilet apart from this there is not other construction on the said land. The said construction is in existence prior to my joining the said Yogashra. I joined the said yogashram in the year 2002. I do not know as to who has raised the construction prior to my joining.....
Contd...
Page No. 14 Suit No. 1636/2008.
Swami Chakrapani vs. Sh. Mukesh etc. .... I have never seen any sanctioned plan issued by the MCD concerning the construction on the said land. It is wrong to suggest that construction raised is unauthorised. It is wrong to suggest that the aforesaid land is a government owned land. It is correct that I was arrested on 29.10.2002 under section 107/151 CrPC....
.... Though at present I have not brought the said certificate but the same is available at home.... I am in possession of document to show that my activities were commended by the Parliament of India. I can produce the same but at presently I am not in possession of the same. It is further incorrect to suggest that there is no such document showing that my activities were commended in Parliament of India and for this reason, I have not brought the same.... .... I was taken to the police station Timarpur by Head Constable Santosh Kumar under Section 65 DP Act (Vol. I do not know any such person). It is wrong to suggest that I was let off by the police by Contd...
Page No. 15 Suit No. 1636/2008.
Swami Chakrapani vs. Sh. Mukesh etc. reminding me that this land of seva Yogaashram is a public land and it was advised that I had not right to raise construction...... It was late night hours and I was sleeping in my room (11.30 PM). No construction activities was (were) being carried out by any one on the said date and time. It is incorrect to suggest that I have mentioned in my affidavit that I was shifting "Shiv Parivar Deity" at that point of time and on the said date (At this stage the witness is confronted with para 3 of the Ex. PA where it is not so mentioned but mention to the effect that Deity Shiv Parivar was already there for the last many years and was to be shifted with all due regards and ritual to the said Deity.....
..... I am not aware at present the Khasra no. of the land of the seva Yogaashram but Mr. Ram Dhan can very well tell about the same. When I was arrested by the defendants I was forcible taken to the police station by giving maltreatment and harassment upto the police station and on Contd...
Page No. 16 Suit No. 1636/2008.
Swami Chakrapani vs. Sh. Mukesh etc. hearing this my disciples came to the police station. Near about 225 persons had gathered in the police station and included ladies and one Sh. Rajinder Gupta who is the former MLA of the area. All the said persons are my followers and still they continue to be so. It is correct that for the said incident I could not sleep properly for a number of days thereafter. I did not consulted any doctor in this regard. It is wrong to suggest that no such incident took place....
.... It is correct that on 29.10.02 I was arrested by the police u/s 107 CrPC. I was arrested in respect of construction of temple.... I had ot taken any permission from any Govt. authority prior to the construction..... It is correct that I have joined the Ashram about 2 years ago in 2002. The number of disciples has increased after my joining the Ashram. The Shiv Parivar has been shifted to Noida..... I have not brought the mobile which was broken by defendants. It is wrong to suggest that mobile phone was not broken or no incident took Contd...
Page No. 17 Suit No. 1636/2008.
Swami Chakrapani vs. Sh. Mukesh etc. place and as such I have not brought the same. The Khasra number is written in the plaint. The complaint Ex. PW 1/6 was sent by me, it bears my signature at point A. The original of this document was sent to the concerned department and its photstate copy which was got acknowledged from the department concerned after submitting the same. I do not remember at this time as to after how many days of the incident the said complaint was sent. Sh. Ram Dhan became my disciple after I came to the Ashram. Vol. He was initiated by me in the ashram though he was known to me prior to my coming to the ashram in 2002. After the incident of my arrest, the people on the area started suspecting me as a terrorist and the police spread rumor to this effect against me to aforesaid effect....
.... I cannot specifically tell names of persons who started suspecting me as terrorists but they were people of the locality.... I am regularly performing my spiritual duties in the ashram, except for some Contd...
Page No. 18 Suit No. 1636/2008.
Swami Chakrapani vs. Sh. Mukesh etc. period when I am out of station.... I did not get postmortem of the cow and calf, for ascertaining the reason of their deaths, though their dead bodies were removed by the MCD contractor. It is wrong to suggest that the deaths of the cow and calf did not take place due to any action of defendants..... No demolition took place on 27.9.03. vol. But it took place on 23.09.03. It is wrong to suggest that the deities of Shiv Parivar or walls of the Ashram never existed at the site...."
The next witness examined by the plaintiff is PW 2 Sh. Ram Dhan, who has also filed his evidence by way of affidavit, reiterating and reaffirming the stand taken by the plaintiff in the plaint.
In his crossexamination he has deposed the following effect :
".... Earlier there was a cow shed built upon said Contd...
Page No. 19 Suit No. 1636/2008.
Swami Chakrapani vs. Sh. Mukesh etc. land which was demolished by the defendants.... Kiran Bedi was never deciple (disciple) of plaintiff though she had attended the activities of yoga at this ashram in camp. Presently, I do not have any documentary evidence to show her participation in the same.... The work done by plaintiff was appreciated in Parliament of India and in this regard there is a press clipping. The said clipping was not regarding the plaintiff....
.... It is correct that then when a question was raised in Parliament by the MPs regarding the Ashram, the plaintiff was not the incharge of Sewa Yog Ashram. The said matter of raising question in Parliament relates to 1984. It is correct that the plaintiff had joined the said Yog Ashram approx three years back.... It is correct that plaintiff was arrested by police of Timarpur on 29.10.03 u/s 107/151 CrPC..... No permission was taken from any authority for construction of the temple....
.... The incident of misbehaviour by defendants Contd...
Page No. 20 Suit No. 1636/2008.
Swami Chakrapani vs. Sh. Mukesh etc. with plaintiff took place at 11.30 pm in the ashram and I was present and there was no other person present besides us. There are about 8001000 disciples / followers in Delhi alone of plaintiff. It is correct that said disciples were initiated by plaintiff after he came to Del in said Yog Ashram. It is correct that no. of disciples are increasing day by day from the day Swamiji joined the ashram till today. They have been enjoying a good reputation in the area. His reputation is also growing in the area day by day since the time he has joined. The plaintiff did not consult any doctor for his sleeplessness caused on account of their mishebaviour. This act was told to me by the plaintiff himself.... I have no evidence to show that there existed a canopy or cowshed which was dismantled by defendants.... We did not any postmortem conducted of dead cow for ascertaining reason of its death. Similar is my reply with respect to death of calf..... Anil Kumar, Braham Praksh, Vinod Kr, Mohan Goel, etc were Contd...
Page No. 21 Suit No. 1636/2008.
Swami Chakrapani vs. Sh. Mukesh etc. present in PS when the defendants had humiliated the plaintiff in PS. We calculated amount of damages on basis of taking into consideration that defendants are service class person... No receipt was obtained by there is an FIR for loss of said phone. I have not brought said FIR today.... On 27.9.03 calf of cow had died. Apart from it no other incident took place. I did not mention in my affidavit that people of area stopped respecting plaintiff after the incident of 23.9.03. vol. The incident put a question mark on status of plaintiff. There was no change in attitude of people of area towards plaintiff after 23.9.03. I have gone through affidavit before signing it. I am not sure if plaintiff had lodged any complaint against defendants for incidence of 23.09.03."
The first witness examined by the defendants is defendant no. 1 / DW 1 Sh. Mukesh Kumar, who has filed his evidence by way of affidavit, reiterating and reaffirming the stand taken by the Contd...
Page No. 22 Suit No. 1636/2008.
Swami Chakrapani vs. Sh. Mukesh etc. defendants in the Written Statement.
The relevant part of crossexamination of DW 1 reads to the following effect :
".... I cannot tell as to whether the gram sabha has made any complaints in writing to any of the authorities that the plaintiff has grabbed the above said land. Vol. The complaint was received from the SDM, dated 30.10.2002. I cannot tell as to whether the DD entry of the said complaint by the SDM was done or not. In the complaint / order passed by the SDM, it was mentioned that the assistence of revenue officials shall be taken. I cannot tell as to since how long the correspondence with respect to the complaint / order of the SDM went on. I do not remember the khasra number etc of the land grabbed by the plaintiff but I have filed the same on record.... I do not remember the areas patrolled by me, the DD entries made by me on 23.9.2003. The original letter of the SDM is already there on record. The Contd...
Page No. 23 Suit No. 1636/2008.
Swami Chakrapani vs. Sh. Mukesh etc. name of that SDM was Shri S.N. Batra.... I have not brought the DD no. 16 A dated 29.10.2002 but I can bring the same. I have also not brought the Kalandra under section 65 of DP Act in the court.... I cannot admit or deny the suggestion that the above said land was donated by the gram sabha to the Ashram....
.... I cannot tell the quantity of the building material at the place of the plaintiff on 23.9.2003 as I did not visit the plaintiff on that day. I cannot tell as to whether on behalf of P.S. Timarpur, any complaint was lodged with the MCD with regard to the unauthorized temple. I do not remember the DD number dated 23.9.2003 in which the plaintiff brought to the P.S. Timarpur by HC Santosh Kumar on23.9.2003. Vol. The said DD entry is already on record. It is correct that the plaintiff had sent a notice u/s 140 of the DP Act on 30.9.2003 and the same was served upon me. It is correct that the said notice was not replied by me...."
Contd...
Page No. 24 Suit No. 1636/2008.
Swami Chakrapani vs. Sh. Mukesh etc. Defendant no. 2 has examined himself as DW 2 and has filed his evidence by way of affidavit, reiterating and reaffirming the stand taken by the defendants in the Written Statement.
The relevant part of crossexamination of DW 2 reads to the following effect :
".... It is correct that I was posted at police station Timarpur in between 20.09.2003 to 30.09.2003. It is correct that the said police station has the record of my visits. I do not remember the visits done by me on 23.09.2003. I have not brought any copy of the letter / order as mentioned by me in para y of my affidavit. I have not brought the record of the proceedings as mention by me in para no. 8 of my affidavit today in the court.... I cannot tell as to whether the land in question has been donated by the Gram Sabha to the Shiva Yog Ashram.... It is correct that the Written Statement is signed by defendant no. 1 and supported by my affidavit. I had read the Written Statement. It is Contd...
Page No. 25 Suit No. 1636/2008.
Swami Chakrapani vs. Sh. Mukesh etc. wrong to suggest that I have filed false affidavit or that I am deposing falsely."
The third witness examined by the defendants is Head Constable Raj Kumar, Police Station Timarpur, who in his examinationinchief has proved the DD entry recorded by HC Santosh as Ex. DW 3/1. In his crossexamination, DW 3 has admitted it to be correct that there is a cutting in the date on Ex. DW 3/1 at point A. He has further stated that he cannot recognise the handwriting of the person who recorded the said DD entry. He has also admitted it to be correct that said DD entry does not bear the signature of HC Santosh.
The next witness examined by the defendants is DW 4 Sh. V.N. Gupta, LDC, BDO North, who in his examinationinchief has stated that the order dated 30.10.2002 passed by Sh. S.L. Batra, Contd...
Page No. 26 Suit No. 1636/2008.
Swami Chakrapani vs. Sh. Mukesh etc. SDM in respect of the removal of encroachment from Goan Sabha land in Qazirabad, Ramghat for the reason as the same is not traceable. In his crossexamination DW 4 has stated that he has been deputed by Panchayat Secretary and note in this regard is mentioned on the summons issued by this court, which he had brought. He has further stated that there is no specific order of Panchayat Secretary deputing me to depose in this case. DW 4 has stated further that he has not brought any documentary evidence to show that the record is not traceable and no writing by the Panchayat Secretary has been furnished to him to show that the summoned record is not traceable.
The last witness examined by the defendants is DW 5 who in his examinationinchief stated that he has not brought the summoned record as the same is not traceable.
Both the parties have filed on record their written final arguments. In the written final arguments filed on record, Ld. counsel Contd...
Page No. 27 Suit No. 1636/2008.
Swami Chakrapani vs. Sh. Mukesh etc. for the plaintiff has vehemently argued that that the plaintiff has been able to prove his case in its entirety. It has been further argued that in the entire crossexamination, Ld. Defence counsel has not even suggested to PW 1 that he is not entitled to the damages claimed and PW 1 being the plaintiff is not entitled for the damages claimed in the suit as well as interest claimed in the suit. It has been further argued that the defence taken by the defendant was that HC Santosh Kumar had brought the plaintiff to police station and HC Santosh Kumar has not appeared in the witness box inn order to support the defence.
On the other hand, in the written final arguments filed on record by the defendants, Ld. counsel for the defendants has relied upon the testimonies of PWs and has argued that the plaintiff has utterly failed to prove its case at all. It has been further argued that the plaintiff has not been able to prove on record the alleged acts of omission and commission on the part of the defendants.
It has to be seen by the court that plaintiff has examined Contd...
Page No. 28 Suit No. 1636/2008.
Swami Chakrapani vs. Sh. Mukesh etc. only two witness : himself as PW 1 and Sh. Ram Dhan as PW 2, who is admittedly the disciple, care taker as well as administrator of yoga ashram of the plaintiff. None of the witnesses from the public who could have been called an independent witness, has been examined at all by the plaintiff despite the fact that the plaintiff has claimed that he has got a large number of disciples.
It has to be further seen that PW 2 has clearly stated in the crossexamination and has given specific mention of the persons before whom the plaintiff has allegedly been defamed by the defendants and these persons are namely Anil Kumar, Braham Praksh, Vinod Kr, Mohan Goel who were allegedly present when the defendants humiliated the plaintiff in the police station but the aforesaid witnesses have not been examined at all by the plaintiff. No efforts have been made by the plaintiff to procure the presence of the aforesaid witnesses in the court and to examine them as witness in support of the allegations as levelled by the plaintiff in the plaint.
Contd...
Page No. 29 Suit No. 1636/2008.
Swami Chakrapani vs. Sh. Mukesh etc. Further, it has to be seen that the plaintiff has claimed that he has got a lot of commendations certificates from the persons like Ms. Kiran Bedi, the then ACP in Delhi Police but in the cross examination plaintiff has submitted that he is in possession of said commendation certificate issued by Ms. Kiran Bedi, but the aforesaid commendation certificate has not been proved on record. The aforesaid Ms. Kiran Bedi has also not been examined.
The plaintiff has further claimed that he is in possession of documents to show that his activities were commended by Parliament of India but the aforesaid commendation has not been proved on record. PW 2 in his crossexamination has stated that the work done by the plaintiff was appreciated in Parliament of India and in this regard there was a press clipping but at the same time it has been admitted by PW 2 that when the question was raised by the MPs in the Parliament, the plaintiff was not the Incharge of the Sewa Yoga Ashram as the said matter of raising question in Parliament Contd...
Page No. 30 Suit No. 1636/2008.
Swami Chakrapani vs. Sh. Mukesh etc. relates to 1984. PW 2 has clearly admitted that the plaintiff has joined the said Ashram approx. three yeas back. The plaintiff has further stated that the land where the Ashram was situated was given by the Gram Sabha for the Ashram as per the documents filed on record. But no such document has been proved on record in accordance with the provisions of Indian Evidence Act at all by the plaintiff. Even PW 2 has not been able to prove on record any document showing the title of plaintiff in respect of land in question. It has to be noted that the plaintiff in the crossexamination has clearly admitted that the land in question belongs to Gram Sabha.
It has to be seen further that PW 1 has clearly stated in the crossexamination that he has never seen any sanction plan issued by the MCD regarding the construction of the said land. PW 2 has also stated that no site plan was got approved from MCD for the aforesaid construction. PW 1 has admitted clearly in the cross examination that on 29.10.02 he was arrested by the police u/s 107 Contd...
Page No. 31 Suit No. 1636/2008.
Swami Chakrapani vs. Sh. Mukesh etc. CrPC and he was arrested in respect of construction of temple. He has further admitted that he has not taken any permission from any court / authority prior to the construction.
The plaintiff has stated in his affidavit of evidence for the first time that after the incidence of his arrest, the people of the area started suspecting him as terrorist and police also spread this rumor. It has to be seen that the plaintiff has not been able to prove these allegations on record. Plaintiff has admitted in the crossexamination and has stated that he cannot specifically give the name of the persons who started suspecting him as terrorist but they were the people of the locality. No such person has been examined at all by the plaintiff.
The plaintiff has further alleged that the death of cow and calf was caused because of the acts done by the defendants but in the crossexamination PW 1 has admitted that he did not get the postmortem of cow and calf for ascertaining the reasons of their deaths. I find force in the submissions of Ld. counsel for the Contd...
Page No. 32 Suit No. 1636/2008.
Swami Chakrapani vs. Sh. Mukesh etc. defendants that in the absence of any postmortem and in the absence of any other cogent evidence on record, it cannot be ascertained that in the death of cow and calf, the defendants had any role to play.
The plaintiff has further alleged that his mobile phone was broken and snatched. But neither the record of service provider nor any record of service of mobile phone has been proved on record. I am of the opinion that Ld. counsel for the defendants has rightly pointed out that even the broken phone has not been brought in the court to prove this incidence. As such, it cannot be asserted that the plaintiff was having any mobile set and further that it was broken by the defendant. It has also been rightly pointed out by the defendants that no independent witness has been examined by the plaintiff in this regard. PW 2 has stated in his crossexamination that mobile phone was not got repaired by the plaintiff but was deposited with concerned company but no receipt was obtained for the said phone. PW 2 has stated that there was an FIR for the lost of said phone but he had not Contd...
Page No. 33 Suit No. 1636/2008.
Swami Chakrapani vs. Sh. Mukesh etc. brought the said FIR today. As such, no FIR has been proved on record.
Further, the plaintiff has alleged that the Canopy was dismantled by the defendants but going by the evidence led by the plaintiff, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff has failed to prove the existence of the alleged canopy and its alleged demolition. PW 2 has clearly stated that he has no evidence to show that there existed a canopy or cowshed which was dismantled by the defendants.
Ld. counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that the defendants have not been able to prove that they were not involved in the act of defamation of plaintiff. I am of the opinion that in order to succeed a party has to stand on its own legs. This is a suit for malicious prosecution and it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove its case by its own independent evidence that the plaintiff was defamed at the end of defendants.
Contd...
Page No. 34 Suit No. 1636/2008.
Swami Chakrapani vs. Sh. Mukesh etc. In the light of the discussion which has been carried out herein above, I have no hesitation to hold that the plaintiff has utterly failed to prove its case on record. As such, issue no. 4 is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants. Relief : In view of my findings on issue no. 4, the suit of the plaintiff is bound to fail and the same is hereby dismissed.
Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court today on 21st Day of May, 2009.
(RAJ KUMAR) ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL JUDGE cum ADDL RENT CONTROLER (NORTH) DELHI Contd...