Delhi District Court
Deepanjali Kumari & Ors vs Kirti Mehta on 15 July, 2014
Page 1 of 14
IN THE COURT OF Ms. SUNENA SHARMA
Addl. Distt Judge - 04 (SE)
SAKET COURTS COMPLEX: NEW DELHI
CS No.149/2014
Unique Case ID No.02406C0029842012
Date of Institution : 01.12.2012
Arguments concluded : 02.07.2014
Date of decision : 15.07.2014
Deepanjali Kumari & Ors versus Kirti Mehta
O R D E R
1. By this order I shall decide the preliminary issue as recasted vide order dated 12.05.2014 to the following effect: 'Whether the plaint does not disclose any cause of action? OPD'
2. Briefly stated the case of plaintiffs is that defendant is the alleged wife of their brother Sh Sangram Vijay Singh. Property bearing No. 54, Friends Colony (East), New Delhi was in the name of their parental grandmother late Smt. Choree Maharani Dibya Laxmi Devi which after a long litigation came to be partitioned among her legal heirs vide a preliminary decree dated 09.12.1997 in CS (OS) No.3235/1988 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi which was subsequently modified vide order dated 19.02.2003. However, said preliminary decree is stated to be still under challenge in FAO (OS) No.514/2010 before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. As per the averments in the plaint, both the plaintiffs and their CS No.149/2014 Deepanjali Kumari & Ors v Kirti Mehta Page 2 of 14 brother Sh Sangram Vijay Singh are the legal heirs to the property No.54, Friends Colony, New Delhi. It is alleged that plaintiff's brother Mr Sangram Vijay Singh had consistently started mentally, physically and emotionally harassing the plaintiffs as he wished them to abandon their share in the said house and to illegally grab said property.
It is further averred that defendant at the behest of her husband Mr Sangram Vijay Singh has been trying to make false allegations and false case against plaintiffs and their husbands to defame their reputation and respect in society. Subsequent to which a complaint dated 10.09.2012 vide DD No.57B in PS New Friends Colony was filed by plaintiffs against defendant and her husband. Later on plaintiffs also filed another complaint in Delhi Commission for Women (hereinafter referred as 'DCW') on 14.09.2012 against the plaintiffs in relation to same issue. Pursuant to notice issued by DCW on aforementioned complaint of plaintiffs, defendant and her alleged husband appeared before DCW on 11.10.2012 and sought time to file their reply. It is further averred that between 11.10.2012 and 13.10.2012 Mr Sangram Vijay Singh, defendant and their maternal uncle Mr Vikram Singh Tanwar threatened the plaintiffs that either they take back their complaints or otherwise they and their husbands would be implicated in false cases such as dowry cases. Consequently, plaintiffs reported the matter to police and also filed a complaint under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 before the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket Courts.
Thereafter, defendant filed a complaint against plaintiffs and their CS No.149/2014 Deepanjali Kumari & Ors v Kirti Mehta Page 3 of 14 husbands with PS New Friends Colony on 15.10.2012 vide DD No.28B alleging therein that after the defendant got engaged with plaintiff's brother on 30.10.2011, plaintiffs herein have been harassing the defendant for money. It is averred that allegations leveled in said complaint are blatantly false and frivolous as both the defendant and her alleged husband Mr Sangram Vijay Singh during the proceedings of plaintiff's complaint dated 14.09.12 before DCW had themselves admitted before DCW on 18.10.2012 that they had not faced any dowry demand or dowry related harassment from plaintiffs. But despite their said written admission before DCW, defendant on the very same day i.e. 18.10.2012, filed another complaint before another member of DCW raising similar allegations therein. This clearly proves that all allegations raised by defendant were afterthought only to defame the plaintiffs and their husbands. Plaintiffs have placed on record the copies of all the complaints filed by defendant against them i.e. the complaint dated 15.10.2012, made to the SHO, PS NFC and the complaints dated 18.10.2012 filed with DWC and the proceedings recorded before DCW on 18.10.2012 and 30.10.2012.
3. Although, the defendant has filed the written statement on record, but contents of WS are not being discussed herein as same are not relevant for the purpose of deciding the above preliminary issue. It is settled law that for deciding whether the plaint does or not does not disclose any cause of action, only the contents of plaint and the documents accompanying thereto has to be looked into and defence put forth by CS No.149/2014 Deepanjali Kumari & Ors v Kirti Mehta Page 4 of 14 defendant is totally irrelevant for deciding the said issue.
4. I have heard the submissions from both the parties and perused the entire record.
5. In the present case, plaintiffs have approached the court vide this suit for seeking reliefs of declaration, permanent injunction and damages by alleging therein that by knowingly making false allegations against plaintiffs and their husbands regarding criminal intimidation, dowry demand and harassment before police authorities and DCW vide her complaints dated 15.10.2012 and 18.10.2012 respectively, she has defamed the plaintiffs with a view to malign their reputation in the society. Plaintiff No.2 is stated to be pursuing PhD in international relations while plaintiff No.1 is a business administrator.
6. Before proceeding further in the matter, it would be pertinent to mention the reliefs sought in the present plaint. As per the prayer clauses following reliefs have been sought: "a) To declare that the defendant have no right to interfere in the life of plaintiffs and interfering with praying of plaintiffs.
b) To restrain the defendant, and any of her representative or assigns, directly or indirectly by way of permanent injunctions from writing and/or publishing defamatory or any other letters and materials and making false and frivolous allegations, against the plaintiffs and from interfering in any manner whatsoever in the life and day to day affairs of the plaintiffs.
c) Damages of Rs.5,00,000/ (Rupees Five Lacs only) for writing false, frivolous complaints, damaging the reputation of plaintiffs and their husband and causing loss of reputation to the plaintiffs alongwith future damages and interest thereon from the date of filing of the suit."
CS No.149/2014 Deepanjali Kumari & Ors v Kirti Mehta Page 5 of 14
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of defendant vehemently argued that main grievance of plaintiffs are relating to the allegations complained against them and their respective husbands in the complaint of the defendant made by her on 15.10.2012 to the SHO, New Friends Colony, Police Station and on 18.10.2012 to the DCW. And considering the fact that said complaints are still pending investigation and have not reached to any logical conclusion nor any competent court has given its finding regarding falsity of allegations contained therein, the same cannot be the basis of a suit for damages on account of defamation nor any such injunctions prayed by the plaintiffs can be granted in view of the bar of Section 41 (d) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. He further argued that except averments relating to aforementioned complaints of defendant, there is no iota of averment disclosing any cause of action against the defendant for seeking any of the reliefs claimed in the plaint.
8. To strengthen his arguments, he relied upon the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CS (OS) No.569/2006 dated 02.03.2009 in the matter of Prof Imtiaz Ahmad v Durdana Zamir wherein interalia it has been held as under: "7. Under law of defamation, the test of defamatory nature of a statement is its tendency to incite an adverse opinion or feeling of other persons towards the plaintiff. A statement is to be judged by the standard of the ordinary, right thinking members of the society at the relevant time. The words must have resulted in the plaintiff to be shunned or evaded or regarded with the feeling of hatred, contempt, ridicule, fear, dislike or dis esteem or to convey an imputation to him or disparaging him or his office, profession, calling, CS No.149/2014 Deepanjali Kumari & Ors v Kirti Mehta Page 6 of 14 trade or business. The defamation is a wrong done by a person to another's reputation. Since, it is considered that a man's reputation, in a way, is his property and reputation may be considered to be more valuable than any other form of property. Reputation of a man primarily and basically is the opinion of friends, relatives, acquittance or general public about a man. It is his esteem in the eyes of the others. The reputation spread by communication of thought and information from one to another. Where a person alleges that his reputation has been damaged, it only means he has been lowered in the eyes of right thinking persons of the society or his friends/relatives. It is not enough for a person to sue for words which merely injure his feeling or cause annoyance to him. Injury to feeling of a man cannot be made a basis for claiming of damages on the ground of defamation. Thus, the words must be such which prejudice a man's reputation and are so offensive so as to lower a man's dignity in the eyes of others. Insult in itself is not a cause of action for damages on the ground of defamation."
9. He urged that considering the observation in Prof. Imtiaz Ahmad (supra) regarding defamation, the allegations contained in said complaint dated 18.10.2012 against the plaintiffs and their husbands relating to threats, harassment and demand of dowry are not perse defamatory. And even in case they are considered so, the contents of a complaint made by any person to police or any competent authority for seeking protection for his life and security constitute a privilege communication and cannot be made basis of a suit for defamation, until and unless a competent court holds that said complaints are false and frivolous and actuated by malice and hence, no cause of action would lie to file a suit for seeking damages on account of defamation or for seeking injunction in this regard. To buttress his contentions, he further placed reliance on the following judgments: A. Bira Gareri v Dulhin Somaria & Ors : AIR 1962 Patna 229;
CS No.149/2014 Deepanjali Kumari & Ors v Kirti Mehta
Page 7 of 14
B. Lachhman v Prarchand & Ors : AIR 1959 Rajasthan 169;
10. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing on behalf of plaintiffs have refuted the contention that plaint does not disclose any cause of action and submitted that the allegations made in aforementioned two complaints by the defendant has lowered the image of the plaintiffs in the eyes of society and defendant has knowingly raised said false allegations against the plaintiff which is also evident from the fact that even after withdrawing the allegations of dowry demand and harassment against the plaintiffs herein before DCW on 18.10.2012, defendant again lodged a written complaint against the plaintiffs on the very same day. It is further argued that on 18.10.2012, defendant and her husband had clearly admitted before DCW that they had never faced any dowry demand or harassment from the plaintiffs or their husbands and despite that she on the very same date filed a fresh complaint containing similar allegations before another member of the DCW, but the file was closed by the commission finding the same to be false in view of the aforementioned settlement arrived at between the parties before another member of the commission.
11. I have carefully gone through all the complaints viz dated 14.09.2012 lodged by plaintiffs to DCW; dated 15.10.2012 lodged by the defendant with SHO, PS New Friends Colony and complaint dated 18.10.2012 lodged by defendant with DCW as well as the proceedings recorded by DCW on both the aforementioned complaints of plaintiffs and CS No.149/2014 Deepanjali Kumari & Ors v Kirti Mehta Page 8 of 14 defendant, which are placed on record as Annexures P7, P9, P10, P12 and P13. I have also carefully gone through the judgments relied upon by the parties in support of their respective contentions.
12. As already noted above, plaintiffs have prayed for three different reliefs viz declaration, permanent injunction and damages. Declaration has been sought to declare that defendant has no right to interfere in the life of plaintiffs. As per Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property may institute a suit against any person denying, or interested to deny, his title to such character or right. Hence, only where there is denial on the part of the defendant to any legal character or right of the plaintiffs to any property, to which he is entitled, the suit for declaration may lie. Whereas, in the instant case, plaintiffs are not seeking declaration regarding any legal character or any right to the property nor as per the averments in the plaint, there is any intention on the part of the defendant to deny plaintiffs' any legal character or right to property which they are otherwise entitled as per law. Rather, in the form of declaration, plaintiffs are trying to seek an injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering in their life, which is also being asked in the relief of permanent injunction. Hence, as per the averments contained in the plaint, relief of declaration is not maintainable as there is no cause of action disclosed therein for claiming said relief. Mere filing of a complaint by defendant against the plaintiffs before police or DCW, does not create any cloud on any legal character of CS No.149/2014 Deepanjali Kumari & Ors v Kirti Mehta Page 9 of 14 the plaintiffs. During course of arguments, learned counsel for plaintiffs has fairly conceded that the relief of declaration is not properly framed, hence, they are not pressing the same.
13. Now, comes the other relief of damages to the tune of Rs.5.00 Lac and relief of permanent injunction whereby defendant is prayed to be restrained from writing and/or publishing defamatory or any other letter or material and making false and frivolous allegations, against plaintiffs and from interfering in any manner whatsoever in the life and day to day affairs of the plaintiffs.
14. As per Section 38(1) of the Act, a perpetual injunction can be granted to prevent breach of an obligation existing in favour of plaintiff, whether expressly or by implication. In other words, this remedy presupposes the existence of a legal right in favour of the party who has come to the Court for protection. Plaintiffs have not been able to establish that any of their rights have been violated by the defendant by approaching the police or DCW with complaints against them. It is not the case of the plaintiffs that there exists any obligation in their favour which is likely to be violated by the defendant. As per the contentions raised by learned counsels for plaintiffs, there is no denial to the defendant's right to file a complaint with the police or DCW for seeking protection for her life and security, but it is urged that she cannot be allowed to do so by filing false and frivolous complaint which are per se defamatory.
CS No.149/2014 Deepanjali Kumari & Ors v Kirti Mehta Page 10 of 14
15. In this regard, I find force in the argument of learned counsel for defendant that unless the complaint or the allegations contained therein are held to be false and frivolous by any competent court and unless it is adjudicated and concluded by such court that complaint was actuated with malice, such complaint can not be made basis of a suit for seeking damages on account of defamation. Reliance is placed on Prof. Imtiaz Ahmad (supra) where the defendants therein had filed a complaint against the plaintiff therein before CAW Cell which later on culminated into an FIR under Section 406/498A/34 IPC, a suit was filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for permanent injunction and damages on account of defamation before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. While dismissing the said suit, under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the Hon'ble High Court made following observations: "11. Moreover, the defendant had a right to make complaints of her grievances to the authorities. Whenever a person makes a complaint against someone to the lawful authorities and in that complaint he makes imputations against the person complained of, it cannot be considered that the person has publicized or publicly made defamatory averments against a person. If a prosecution is initiated against the person on the basis of such averments and the person is acquitted holding that the complaint was false, then only a cause of action arises against the complainant for launching a case for false prosecution or for damages on other grounds. Until and unless a competent court holds that complaint was false, no cause of action arises. Approaching a competent authority and praying that the authority should come to the rescue of the complainant and prevent inference of the plaintiff in the family affairs of the defendant cannot amount to a defamatory imputation per se and even if it is published, it does not tend to show that the defendant had intended to lower the reputation of the plaintiff."
CS No.149/2014 Deepanjali Kumari & Ors v Kirti Mehta Page 11 of 14
16. In this regard, it is also pertinent to mention that as per the Annexure P10, on 18.10.2012, both the parties were present before DCW during the proceedings on the plaintiff's complaint dated 14.09.2012 filed against the defendant herein. At first instance, some settlement was arrived at between the parties, and proceedings were got signed by the them. But it appears that after some time, matter was again taken up by the Commission on the very same date as some dispute again arose which the parties could not resolve despite interventions and efforts of their two aunts who were also present, and counselling by the Commission. In view thereof, parties were advised to take legal recourse. In such background of circumstances, the settlement allegedly arrived at between the parties or the alleged statement made by defendant and her husband before DCW cannot be said to be binding on them. In fact no written statement of defendant or her husband were recorded by the Commission, and the settlement wherein defendant allegedly withdrew their allegations regarding dowry demand and harassment was merely recorded in the proceedings only.
17. From the aforementioned facts and circumstances, it appears the respective complaints of parties against each other were left open to be investigated and decided by the competent legal authorities and that is why parties were advised to take legal recourse. The subsequent complaint of defendant on very same day i.e. 18.10.2012 was also closed in view of the fact that despite efforts, parties had failed to reconcile the matter before another member of the Commission and the complaint filed by the plaintiffs CS No.149/2014 Deepanjali Kumari & Ors v Kirti Mehta Page 12 of 14 against defendant under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was already pending before learned MM, Saket Courts.
18. Hence, the complaints filed by the defendant are still pending investigation and no prosecution has yet started thereon. Nor any competent authority has given any finding that complaints are false or frivolous or actuated with malice so as to give any cause of action to the plaintiffs to approach the Court for seeking damages on account of defamation on the basis of the said complaints. Furthermore, in such like situations, entertaining such suits, at this premature stage would amount to discouraging people from exercising their valuable right to knock the doors of criminal justice system, of which police is also an integral part for protection of their life and security. Furthermore, after having gone through the functions of the Commission as contained in Section 10 of the Chapter III of Delhi Commission for Women Act, 1994, DCW can only take up the issues with the appropriate authorities where the complaint relates to following issues: "(f) Look into complaints and take suo moto notice of the matter relating to:
(i) Deprivation of women's rights;
(ii) nonimplementation of laws enacted to provide protection to women and also achieve the objective of equality and development;
(iii) noncompliance of policy decisions, guidelines or instructions aimed at mitigating hardships and ensuring welfare and providing relief to women, and take up the issues arising out of such matters with appropriate authorities;"
Further, as per Section 10 (3) of the DCW Act, 1994, the commission in relation to investigation of complaints specified therein including those CS No.149/2014 Deepanjali Kumari & Ors v Kirti Mehta Page 13 of 14 mentioned in clause (f), has been further conferred with the powers of a Civil Court for collecting the evidence. Hence, as such the commission is not an adjudicatory body competent to give any finding as to the genunity or falsity of any complaint. It merely acts like a facilitator in matters relating to women and at the most can take up the issues arising out of such complaints with the appropriate authorities. Hence, in view of aforementioned circumstances, plaint does not disclose any cause of action for the relief of damages.
19. As regards relief of permanent injunction, the contents of plaint show that barring the criminal complaints made by defendant against plaintiffs to police and DCW, there is no other allegation suggesting anything that defendant ever wrote or published any perse defamatory material against the plaintiffs. In my considered view, no such injunction for restraining any person to file a criminal complaint can be granted by the Court even otherwise in view of bar of Section 41 (d) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which reads as under: "Section 41 No injunction can be granted :
(a) xxxx
(b) xxxx
(c) xxxx
(d) to restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting any proceedings in a criminal matter"
20. The other prayer for restraining the defendant from interfering in the life of plaintiffs and their daytoday affairs, the reliefs sought is so CS No.149/2014 Deepanjali Kumari & Ors v Kirti Mehta Page 14 of 14 general and vague and even in that regard too, no cause of action has been disclosed in the plaint.
21. In view of the above provision, no injunction can be granted to restrain a person from filing a criminal complaint and as regards the contention of plaintiffs' counsel that none can have a right to file a false complaint, it is to be noted again that only a competent court can decide and conclude whether such complaint was genuine or frivolous and that too when a prosecution has commenced on the same. It is only after a finding is given by the competent court that complaints of defendant were false, plaintiffs would have other efficacious remedies provided under law to sue the defendant for damages.
22. Having regard to above discussion, I am of the view that for the relief of damages, suit is premature and does not disclose any cause of action for any of the reliefs sought in the plaint. Preliminary issue is accordingly decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of defendant.
23. Consequently, plaint is hereby rejected under Order 7 Rule 11
(a) CPC. No order as to cost. File be consigned to Record Room.
(Sunena Sharma) Addl. Distt Judge04/SouthEast Saket Courts Complex, New Delhi Announced & dictated in the Open Court on 15.07.2014.
CS No.149/2014 Deepanjali Kumari & Ors v Kirti Mehta