Delhi District Court
Randhir Singh Azad vs Sunita@Sangeeta@Pooja on 18 September, 2023
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE04
NORTH WEST DISTRICT, DELHI
CS DJ : 561/2017
CNR No. : DLNW010061402017
Randhir Singh Azad
S/o Late Bishan Singh
R/o C421, J J Colony,
Wazirpur, Delhi
.....Plaintiff
Versus
Sunita @ Sangeeta @ Pooja W/o Sh Sunil
R/o N17A/414, Pathar Wala Bagh,
Huts J J Colony, Wazirpur, Delhi52
......Defendant
Suit filed on : 09.06.2017
Arguments completed on : 18.09.2023
Judgment Announced on : 18.09.2023
SUIT FOR DEFAMATION AND RECOVERY OF
DAMAGES OF RS. 10,00,000/ WITH PENDENTELITE
AND FUTURE INTEREST @ 24 % PER ANNUM
JUDGMENT:
1. The plaintiff has averred in his plaint that he is a social worker and he is peace loving and law abiding citizen of India and that defendant had unnecessary and without any rhyme and reason made defamatory allegations against him just to harm his reputation in the society. It is averred that he is the reputed person in the society and was retired from Indian Navy in the year 1996 and after that he started social work in his area and in CS DJ 561/2017 Randhir Singh Azad Vs Sunita @ Sangeeta @ Pooja Page 1 of 6 this way, he earned a good reputation in the society in the locality / area where he resides. It is averred that plaintiff later on associated with some political party and his the family members had contested the Councilor Election from their respective ward in the Delhi Municipal Corporation Elections thrice and presently his daughter in law is the elected councilor (Nigam Parshad) of the area.
1.1 It is averred that plaintiff is the renowned person in his area and has been working for betterment / welfare of the society after his retirement from Indian Navy and that defendant is quarrelsome nature lady and used to create trouble / nuisance in and around her house without any rhyme and reason and she always used to pick up quarrel with the neighbours without any rhyme and reasons. It is averred that the defendant after having a quarrel / fight with her neighbours recorded a video of herself in the mobile and spread the said video through social media in the area. It is averred that the version of the said video clearly shows that the defendant has been narrating the incident of her quarrel with the neighbour and while narrating the incident of quarrel in the said video, she made false allegation of illicit relation of the plaintiff with some muslim lady, who is residing nearby the accused. It is averred that the said video received by the son of plaintiff in his mobile through whatsapp. It is averred that in this way, the defendant had given dent to the reputation of the plaintiff and plaintiff aggrieved by the act and conduct of the defendant, thereby the plaintiff is defamed in his society without any rhyme and reason. It is averred that due to acts of defendant, CS DJ 561/2017 Randhir Singh Azad Vs Sunita @ Sangeeta @ Pooja Page 2 of 6 plaintiff has suffered from mental torture, pain and agony which brought bad name to the plaintiff and his family who are the person of repute and in resultant, plaintiff suffered loss of peace of mind, physical and mental torture and that plaintiff is under great shock and has to face great shock and has to face great humiliations at the hands of general public and known person. Hence, the suit claiming Rs. 10 lacs as damages towards defamation, mental torture, pain and agony which brought bad name to him and his family members, loss of peace of mind and physical and mental torture suffered by the plaintiff.
2. The defendant has opposed the suit with the averments that suit has been filed by plaintiff suit just to save himself from the clutch of justice as his name is in the FIR No. 165/2017, PS Bharat Nagar, Delhi and that the same has been filed to harass the defendant. The defendant has denied the averments that she had made defamatory allegations against the plaintiff. It is averred by her that she was admitted in the hospital and during the medication, she was semi conscious and she was not in her senses. It is averred that as the CD has not been supplied to her, she does not admit the claim of the plaintiff and she is of the view that contents of the CD is false and fabricated as well manufactured. It is averred that plaintiff and his associates assaulted the defendant so badly that she was hospitalized for 7 days and upon her complaint, a case has been registered against the plaintiff and to counter the said case, present suit has been filed. She denied that she recorded any of video clip by herself and that the mobile phone of the defendant does not support the CS DJ 561/2017 Randhir Singh Azad Vs Sunita @ Sangeeta @ Pooja Page 3 of 6 Whatsapp feature nor having internet facility and that she is a poor lady who earns her bread and butter for her family. It is averred that she is not liable to pay anything to the plaintiff and has denied the plaintiff is renowned person of the area and is working for betterment of the society after retirement.
3. In the replication filed to the written statement of the defendant, the plaintiff has reiterated and reaffirmed the averments made in the plaint. It is averred that the defendant has falsely implicated the plaintiff in the FIR.
4. On completion of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court on 15.09.2018:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of recovery of Rs. 10,00,000/ (Rupees Ten Lacs Only) as damages as prayed for ? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the interest, if yes, then at what rate & for what period ? OPP
3. Relief.
5. Plaintiff has examined himself in support of his case. The defendant also appeared in the witness box to defend her case.
6. I have heard the submissions made by Ld. Counsels for parties and have perused the file. My findings on the issues are as under: CS DJ 561/2017 Randhir Singh Azad Vs Sunita @ Sangeeta @ Pooja Page 4 of 6 Issue no. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of recovery of Rs. 10,00,000/ (Rupees Ten Lacs Only) as damages as prayed for ? OPP Issue no. 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the interest, if yes, then at what rate & for what period ? OPP
7. It is the case of the plaintiff as per pleadings and the deposition that defendant recorded a video after having a quarrel/fight with her neighbours in the mobile and spread it in the social media in the area and that she is narrating the incident of her quarrel with the neighbour and while narrating the incident, she made false allegation of illicit relations of the plaintiff with a muslim lady. It is the claim of the plaintiff that video was received by the son of plaintiff in his mobile through Whatsapp. The defendant has denied the recording of CD and has averred that she was given beatings by the plaintiff and his associates and she lodged a FIR and in counter blast to the said FIR, present case has been filed.
8. The plaintiff has not examined his son in support of his case that one video circulated in the social media was received by him through Whatsapp. The plaintiff failed to lead any evidence to show that it is the defendant who has videographed the incident and circulated the video. The plaintiff has also not examined any witness by whom the said video containing allegations of illicit relations of the plaintiff has been seen and in his mind, the reputation of the plaintiff has been lowered. The evidence adduced by the plaintiff is not sufficient to establish the CS DJ 561/2017 Randhir Singh Azad Vs Sunita @ Sangeeta @ Pooja Page 5 of 6 act of defamation. The plaintiff has also not brought on file to show any loss suffered by him. Thus, for the lack of evidence, the onus of the plaintiff to prove the issues remains undischarged and the issues are decided against him.
Relief
9. For the reasons discussed above, suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. No orders as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared.
Announced in the open Court on September 18th, 2023 (SUNIL CHAUDHARY) ADJ04, North West Rohini Courts, Delhi CS DJ 561/2017 Randhir Singh Azad Vs Sunita @ Sangeeta @ Pooja Page 6 of 6