Delhi District Court
Ramesh Dagar vs Sunita Sehrawat on 27 March, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. RICHA GUSAIN SOLANKI,
ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE-02, SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT,
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS DJ ADJ No. 517907/2016
CNR No. DLSW010100322016
IN THE MATTER OF:
Ramesh Dagar
S/o Sh. Amar Singh
R/o Village Samaspur
New Delhi ........Plaintiff
Versus
Sunita Sehrawat
W/o Sh. Jai Prakash
R/o House No.371 A,
Mahipalpur Village,
New Delhi .......Defendant
Date of institution 23.12.2016
Date of reserving judgment 21.03.2024
Date of pronouncement of judgment 27.03.2024
JUDGMENT
This is a suit for recovery of damages/compensation ₹5,00,000/- on account of defamation. The brief facts as stated in the plaint are:− 1 It is stated that the plaintiff is working in the Delhi Police as an ASI and enjoys a very good reputation and respectability amongst his superiors, peers and public in general. It is stated that the plaintiff has a long-standing experience in the public dealing and during his unblemished career, he has achieved distinguished service.
2 It is stated that the defendant gave a complaint dated CS No. 517907/2016 Ramesh Dagar vs. Sunita Sehrawat Page no. 1/16 01.01.2016 to the SHO, PS Vasant Kunj, which was recorded as DD No. 42B wherein she made false allegations against the plaintiff. It is stated that the defendant alleged in this complaint that she had met the plaintiff in October 2014 when she had come to PS Vasant Kunj, where he was posted, for some work. It is stated that the defendant also alleged in the complaint that she had come to know that the plaintiff was a resident of a neighbouring village and hence she had discussed with him her problem regarding allotment of an alternative plot. It is stated that the defendant alleged that the plaintiff had assured her that he would get her work done in six months and had demanded ₹30 lakhs for the same. It is stated that the defendant alleged that the plaintiff had demanded money from her from time to time and that she had given him ₹40,50,000 after borrowing it on interest. It is stated that the defendant alleged that the plaintiff had shown her some plot, taken her to Vikas Sadan and had kept building stories to assure her that the work would be done. It is stated that the defendant alleged that in January (?) the plaintiff had told her that he could not get the work done and hence she had demanded her money back. It is stated that the defendant alleged that she had gone to the residence of the plaintiff but his family had told her that he had a mental problem. It is stated that the defendant stated in that complaint that she would kill herself if her money was not refunded and the plaintiff would be liable for the same.
3 It is stated that all these allegations were false and baseless and were highly damaging to the plaintiff's reputation. It is stated that the defendant wanted to extort money from the plaintiff. It is stated that the defendant went to the residence of the plaintiff on CS No. 517907/2016 Ramesh Dagar vs. Sunita Sehrawat Page no. 2/16 23.09.2016 and started misbehaving with the plaintiff and his family members, after which the police had to be called. It is stated that the actions of the defendant have damaged the reputation of the plaintiff in the eyes of his organisation, acquaintances, friends and relations and caused immense mental & physical agonies. It is stated that the defendant ruined the plaintiff's career and obliterated all his contributions to his organisation in his unblemished career of 28 years. It is stated that the plaintiff and his family had to face social ostracism because of the wrongful acts of the defendant. 4 It is stated that the contents of the complaint dated 01.01.2016 became the talk of the town amongst his colleagues and after 23.09.2016, his neighbours and relatives also started questioning his character.
5 It is stated that the plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 26.09.2016 to the defendant to immediately issue a retraction and publicly apologise but she neither replied to it nor complied with it.
6 The defendant filed a written statement stating that she met the plaintiff at PS Vasant Kunj and discussed with him that the land belonging to some of her relatives at Village Munirka had been acquired and the DDA was allotting alternative plots to the owners. It is stated that the defendant told him that the allotment to her relatives was pending for a long time and the plaintiff assured that he would get the work done on priority. It is stated that the defendant gave ₹25.50 lakhs to him from 16.10.2014 to 20.01.2015 and ₹15 lakhs in March 2015. It is stated that from this total of ₹40.50 lakhs, the plaintiff returned ₹39.28 lakhs and as such, he has to pay ₹1.22 lakhs plus interest to the defendant.
CS No. 517907/2016 Ramesh Dagar vs. Sunita Sehrawat Page no. 3/16 She further reiterated the contents of her complaint and stated that she gave complaints to the SHO and the Vigilance Branch when he refused to return her money.
7 The defendant has stated that the plaintiff has a poor reputation and service record and that he had cheated several persons for which Panchayats were convened against him. 8 Vide order dated 26.10.2017, three issues were framed by Ld. Predecessor Court:
"(i) Whether the act of the defendant, the plaintiff has been defamed? ...OPP
(ii) If issue no.1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff whether the plaintiff is entitled for the compensation to the tune of Rs 5 lacs? ...OPP
(iii)Relief."
9 In order to prove his case, the plaintiff examined three witnesses:
9.1 The plaintiff entered the witness box as PW1. He tendered his affidavit Ex PW-1/A in evidence, which reiterates the facts mentioned in the plaint. He relied on the following documents:
S. No. Document Marked as 1. Copy of his electoral card Mark A 2. Copy of the complaint dated 01.01.2016 Mark B 3. Copy of DD No. 31 dated 23.09.2016 Ex C1 4. Copy of DD No. 23A dated 23.09.2016 Ex C2 9.2 PW2/Suresh Kumar tendered his affidavit Ex PW-
2/A in evidence, which states that he is the brother of the plaintiff and vouched for his good reputation. He stated that on 26.09.2016, the defendant came to their house and started CS No. 517907/2016 Ramesh Dagar vs. Sunita Sehrawat Page no. 4/16 misbehaving with them, after which the police had to be called. 9.3 PW3/Sonu Kumar tendered his affidavit Ex PW-3/A in evidence, which states that he is a neighbour of the plaintiff and states similar facts as were stated in Ex PW2/A. 10 The defendant examined two witnesses in her support:
10.1 The defendant entered the witness box as DW1 and tendered her affidavit Ex DW1/A, which is on the lines of her written statement. She relied on the following documents:
S. No. Document Marked as
1. Copy of her Aadhaar card Ex DW1/B
(OSR)
2. Copy of allotment letters issued by the DDA Mark A
3. Copy of the statements recorded in the Vigilance Mark B Enquiry and its conclusion
4. Copy of the complaint dated 01.01.2016 Ex DW1/E
5. Copy of reply received under RTI containing DD Ex DW1/F No. 31A (OSR)
6. Information received under RTI regarding the Ex DW1/G Vigilance enquiry (in Court file, but not endorsed as such) 10.2 DW2/Jai Prakash tendered his affidavit Ex DW2/A in evidence reiterating the contents of the plaint but he admitted that he did not know the contents thereof.
11 I have heard Sh. J.R. Mathur, Ld Counsel for the plaintiff and Sh. Ramesh Kumar Yadav, Ld Counsel for the defendant. 12 Issue-wise findings are as under:
"(i) Whether the act of the defendant, the plaintiff has been defamed? ...OPP"
12.1.1 The onus of proving this issue was on the plaintiff. 12.1.2 It is to be noted that while the law relating to CS No. 517907/2016 Ramesh Dagar vs. Sunita Sehrawat Page no. 5/16 criminal defamation is codified in Section 499-500 of the Indian Penal Code, there is no statutory law of civil defamation in India. Thus, based on the English law of civil defamation, it is divided into two types i.e. libel and slander. When defaming words are in writing this is known as libel but if the words are spoken, this type of defamation is called slander.
12.1.3 In the present case, the plaintiff has alleged both:
libel through the complaint dated 01.01.2016 and slander on 23.09.2016.
12.1.4 Thus the plaintiff has to prove that :
(i) the statements made in the complaint dated 01.01.2016 and on 23.09.2016 were made by the defendant,
(ii) such statements referred to him,
(iii) such statements were published,
(iv) such statements were defamatory 12.1.5 The plaintiff has alleged that the complaint dated 01.01.2016 Ex DW1/E was made by the plaintiff to the SHO PS Vasant Kunj, where he was posted at that time. This complaint is admitted by the defendant and rather, she further stated that she made another statement Mark B to the Vigilance Branch, Delhi Police, which is similar to the complaint Ex DW1/E. 12.1.6 Both these complaints refer to the plaintiff and the defendant has practically reiterated all the same allegations in the written statement also. Her defence is the truth.
12.1.7 Therefore, it stands proved that the complaint dated 01.01.2016 was made by the defendant referring to the plaintiff and the same was published, having been filed before his seniors and the Vigilance Branch. Whether this complaint was CS No. 517907/2016 Ramesh Dagar vs. Sunita Sehrawat Page no. 6/16 defamatory or not, shall be dealt with in the later part of this judgment.
12.1.8 As regards the incident of 23.09.2016, the defendant admits that she visited the house of the plaintiff to demand her money back but the plaintiff has not proved that on that day, she made any defamatory statement about him. While DW1/the defendant was suggested, during her cross-examination, that she had alleged that the plaintiff was corrupt and accepted bribes, no such averment was made in the plaint. The plaint simply states that the defendant "misbehaved", "threatened of implication in false cases" and "created nuisance" but not that she made any defamatory statement that day.
12.1.9 Similarly, though the plaintiff stated in his cross- examination that the defendant defamed him in the presence of PW2 and PW3 by calling out his name and saying that he owed her money, his witnesses- PW2 and PW3 only deposed that the defendant "misbehaved", "threatened of implication in false cases" and "created nuisance." Even during their cross- examination, PW2 did not know the purpose of the visit of the defendant and PW3 also stated that she did "gali galoch" and was speaking loudly about "some money matter." Thus none of the plaintiff's witnesses could establish how the visit of the defendant on 23.09.2016 resulted in defamation of the plaintiff. 12.1.10 Thus, the suit of the plaintiff stands limited to the libel committed through the complaint dated 01.01.2016. 12.1.11 Now, back to the question of whether the complaint dated 01.01.2016 is defamatory or not.
12.1.12 In the celebrated case of Sim v Stretch, [1936] 2 All ER 1237, Lord Atkin laid down the test which is often cited as CS No. 517907/2016 Ramesh Dagar vs. Sunita Sehrawat Page no. 7/16 'Atkin Test' for determining defamation. Lord Atkin observed thus:
"Judges and text-book writers alike have found difficulty in defining with precision the word "defamatory." The conventional phrase exposing the plaintiff to hatred, ridicule, or contempt is probably too narrow. The question is complicated by having to consider the person, or class of persons, whose reaction to the publication is the test of the wrongful character of the words used. I do not intend to ask your Lordships to lay down a formal definition, but after collating the opinions of many authorities I propose, in the present case, the test : Would the words tend to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally?"
12.1.13 Similarly in Youssoupoff v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures Ltd. (1934) 50 TLR 581,CA, Lord Justice Slesser stated:
"...not only is a matter defamatory if it brings the plaintiff into hatred, ridicule, or contempt, by reason of some moral discredit on her part, but also if it tends to make the plaintiff shunned or avoided and without any moral discredit or her behalf."
12.1.14 Thus, defamation is a public communication which not only injures but tends to injure the reputation of another in the estimation of reasonable or right-thinking members of the society.
12.1.15 In Shri Bhartu vs Indian Express Newspapers & Ors., 1995 SCC OnLine Del 64, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that "reasonable people" did not mean "all reasonable people" and observed:
"I confess, I feel more drawn to it and would heartily accept it with just one reservation. It appears to me to be unnecessary for the plaintiff to prove that a defamatory interpretation would be placed in the minds of all reasonable people. To me, it would suffice if some appreciable section of reasonable reader would do so. I tend to agree, with respect, with what Holmes J. observed in the judgment of the U.S. Supreme Court in Peck v. Tribune Co. (1909) 214 US 185. The case related to an advertisement depicting the plaintiff CS No. 517907/2016 Ramesh Dagar vs. Sunita Sehrawat Page no. 8/16 commending a brand of whisky. Holmes, J. Said:
"If the advertisement obviously would hurt the plaintiff in the estimation of an important and respectable part of the community liability is not a question of majority vote.".."
12.1.16 The contents of the complaint Ex DW1/E indicate that as per the defendant, the plaintiff, being a government servant employed in the Delhi Police, had demanded and accepted ₹40.50 lakhs from her from time to time for arranging allotment of an alternative plot to her relatives. The plaintiff claims that the complaint dated 01.01.2016 became the talk of the town and people started questioning his integrity. 12.1.17 Such allegations, if not true, certainly had the potential to harm the reputation of the plaintiff in the eyes of a sizeable section of his right-thinking peers and seniors. This is more so because the plaintiff was a public servant working in the Delhi Police.
12.1.18 The defendant has not retracted her allegations, rather as noted above, her defence is the truth. 12.1.19 In Surajmal B. Mehta vs B.G. Horniman And Ors., 1917 SCC OnLine Bom 83, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Beaman of the High Court of Bombay discussed the defences available to a civil defamation action:
"68. Before going into the details of this case I think it desirable to get, and keep, clearly in view, some distinctions between the principal defences to a libel action, which are often confused, both in argument and in judicial pronouncement.
(1) A defendant may contend that the facts complained of are not libellous; or (2) a defendant may claim privilege; or (3) defend upon the ground of fair comment; or (4) he may justify, that is, plead the truth of the facts complained of. The first of these defences may be neglected. It always was, and still is, to some extent, a matter of law for a Judge and not of fact for a Jury.
CS No. 517907/2016 Ramesh Dagar vs. Sunita Sehrawat Page no. 9/16 Privilege and fair comment are frequently confounded even in the dicta of most eminent English Judges. Yet they have nothing in common. Privilege implies that the matter complained of is a libel, but, in the circumstances of its publication, and more especially in the relation of the parties, is protected. Fair comment never is libel. Speaking generally, the defence of privilege is particular to the defendant seeking to avail himself of it while fair comment is common to everybody. The defence of truth implies that the matter complained of is libellous, but if true, there is a complete answer. Fair comment may be true or it may not. The language of the law always seems to me very loose and inexact in treating of these topics. Any statement in positive form is pounced upon as a statement of fact, going beyond comment proper, and therefore outside the protection which the law gives to fair comment. But it is clear that if by comment is meant inference from facts truly stated, the process of inference legitimately leads to a conclusion which may be stated in positive form without losing its essential character."
12.1.20 In the present case, the defendant is not asserting the defence of fair comment or privilege but solely the truth of facts.
12.1.21 Consequently, the burden of proof to demonstrate that the imputations were true rests upon the defendant. Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of M/s. Radha Krishna Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Pandaul Co-Operative Spinning Mills Ltd. & Ors., 2014 SCC OnLine Cal 6299, wherein the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta observed:
"The question as to whether a statement is defamatory includes the question as to whether a "right thinking person" would see the statement as such. In order to found an action for libel, the statement complained off should be false in a written form and should contain defamatory content and should be published. The desire to injure must be the dominated motive for the defamatory publication to defeat any defence of privilege or justification. In a civil action for defamation truth of the defamatory matter is a complete defence. The principle is that "the law will not permit a man to recover damages in respect of an injury to a character which he either does not or ought not to possess". The burden of proof, however, rests on the defendant to prove that the statement is true, and though it is not necessary that the statement is CS No. 517907/2016 Ramesh Dagar vs. Sunita Sehrawat Page no. 10/16 literally true, he must prove it is as a whole substantially true."
12.1.22 The defendant has alleged that she met the plaintiff at PS Vasant Kunj and he induced her to believe that he would help her with the allotment of an alternative plot by the DDA. The defendant has neither mentioned on which date she met him at the police station nor furnished any proof of such a visit. 12.1.23 It is the case of the defendant that such alternative plots were to be allotted to her relative Sh. Gopi Ram and his relatives, and she ended up paying ₹40.50 lakhs to the plaintiff between 16.10.2014 to March 2015. Sh. Gopi Ram is also not a close relative but the father-in-law of the daughter of the brother- in-law of the defendant, as explained by her. Interestingly Sh. Gopi Ram or such relatives of Sh. Gopi Ram never entered the witness box to testify that the plaintiff had assured him/them of the allotment of an alternative plot.
12.1.24 It may also be noted that ₹40.50 lakhs is a substantial amount of money and the defendant claims that she took loans from people to arrange the sum. One wonders why the defendant took loans for allotment of plot, when no plot was to be allotted to her. There is no explanation why she took loans on behalf of Sh. Gopi Ram, and all the while the persons who had to be allotted the plot never even cared to enter the witness box. 12.1.25 The defendant claims that ₹25.50 lakhs were paid to the plaintiff in the presence of one Rajkumari and the wife of one Azad Singh (both her relatives) but they were not called to testify to corroborate her version. The defendant also claims that her brother Sonu gave ₹15 lakhs to the plaintiff in the presence of one Pawan, but they both also did not enter the witness box.
CS No. 517907/2016 Ramesh Dagar vs. Sunita Sehrawat Page no. 11/16 12.1.26 The defendant claims that the plaintiff returned ₹39.28 lakhs in March 2016 but there is no proof of such return of money also. Rather in Mark B, relied upon by the defendant, it is seen that she stated before the Vigilance Branch that the plaintiff took ₹50,000/- from her on 16.10.2016. If the plaintiff had already returned a substantial amount of money in March 2016, there is no reason for the defendant to again pay him in October 2016, after the incident of 23.09.2016. 12.1.27 Ld Counsel for the plaintiff has also highlighted the discrepancy as regards the alleged payments and reverse payments. For instance, in the Vigilance enquiry, the defendant had stated that she was returned only ₹8 lakhs contrary to the averments made in the present suit. Similarly, in the said enquiry, one Pawan claimed that he had given a loan to Sonu (brother of the defendant), whereas in this suit the defendant stated that she had borrowed the money from one Gopal Thakur.
12.1.28 Resultantly, apart from the self-serving and contradictory statements of the defendant, there is no evidence, much less proof, of the exchange of money between herself and the plaintiff.
12.1.29 As noted earlier, the defendant claimed that she had borrowed money on heavy interest at the rate of 3% but she did not examine any person who could testify that he/she had lent money to her. Thus, there is no evidence to show that the defendant even had the means to arrange ₹40.50 lakhs. 12.1.30 DW2/the husband of the defendant could not lend any credence to the testimony of the defendant. He merely stated that "there was some money dispute", which is unusual for a man whose wife claims to have lost ₹40.50 lakhs to trickery.
CS No. 517907/2016 Ramesh Dagar vs. Sunita Sehrawat Page no. 12/16 12.1.31 Ld Counsel for the defendant has argued that Ex DW1/F is the statement of the plaintiff wherein he admits that there was some money transaction between him and the defendant, which proves that the complaint of the defendant was truthful.
12.1.32 I am unable to agree with this submission. The plaintiff has explained in his cross-examination that the defendant wanted to borrow money from him but he refused. A one-line conclusion of the reporting officer that the plaintiff did not want action on his police call because there was some money dispute ("paise ka len den") between them is not sufficient to indicate the truthfulness of the allegations made in the complaint dated 01.01.2016.
12.1.33 The defendant has failed to establish that her complaint was based on the true facts, and therefore, she was entitled to the defence of truth.
12.1.34 Accordingly, it is held that the statement/complaint dated 01.01.2016 made/published by the defendant was defamatory to the plaintiff.
12.1.35 Issue no. (i) is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
"(ii) If issue no.1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff whether the plaintiff is entitled for the compensation to the tune of Rs 5 lacs? ...OPP"
12.1.36 The onus of proving this issue was on the plaintiff. Issue no (i) has been decided in the favour of the plaintiff. Having thus concluded that the four essential elements of defamation under libel have been met, the defendant has CS No. 517907/2016 Ramesh Dagar vs. Sunita Sehrawat Page no. 13/16 consequently exposed herself to potential financial liability, thereby obligating her to compensate the plaintiff for the defamation.
12.1.37 The quantum of damages in a defamation suit varies depending on various factors such as the severity of the defamation, the impact on the plaintiff's reputation, any financial losses suffered as a result, and any aggravating or mitigating circumstances. In determining the quantum of damages, factors such as the nature and extent of the publication, the prominence of the parties involved, the duration of the defamation's effect, and any evidence presented regarding harm to the plaintiff's reputation or financial standing are important. 12.1.38 In the present suit, the plaintiff claims that he was posted as Assistant Sub Inspector when the suit was filed. He was posted as Head Constable when the complaint dated 01.01.2016 was filed. The complaint dated 01.01.2016 was made to the concerned SHO and the Vigilance Branch, but admittedly it was not circulated elsewhere. It is not the case of the plaintiff that he suffered any financial losses as a result of this complaint or that his career progression was impacted.
12.1.39 The plaintiff has asserted that he maintains a highly esteemed reputation and respectability among his superiors, peers and the general public. Additionally, he claims to have rendered a distinguished service for over 28 years. He further claims that the defendant ruined his career and that he and his family had to face social ostracism because of the wrongful acts of the defendant. 12.1.40 However, the plaintiff did not lead any evidence to show that he had an extraordinary service record or that he commanded exceptional respectability among his seniors and CS No. 517907/2016 Ramesh Dagar vs. Sunita Sehrawat Page no. 14/16 peers. Likewise, he also did not lead any evidence to show that his family was ostracised because of the defamatory complaint. 12.1.41 However, it is reasonable to assume that complaints, such as the complaint dated 01.01.2016, frequently disseminate among colleagues, leading to widespread discussion devoid of concern for its authenticity. Consequently, doubts regarding the individual's integrity and character may arise within the community.
12.1.42 It is admitted case of the defendant that a Vigilance enquiry was launched into the complaint dated 01.01.2016 and hence, it is shown that this complaint had the impact of raising questions on the integrity of the plaintiff. It is also seen from Mark B (relied upon by the defendant) that the Vigilance Branch did not report anything against the plaintiff. 12.1.43 Ultimately, the goal of awarding damages in a defamation suit is to provide fair compensation to the plaintiff for the harm suffered due to the defamatory statements. This harm encompasses not only financial losses but also emotional distress. 12.1.44 In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that compensation of ₹2 lakhs would be sufficient. The defendant is hereby directed to compensate the plaintiff with the sum of ₹2 lakhs within a period of two months from the date of this judgment and decree. In the event that the compensation is not paid within the stipulated timeframe, the aforementioned amount shall thereafter accrue interest at a rate of 4% per annum until the date of realisation. 12.1.45 Issue no.(ii) is accordingly answered.
CS No. 517907/2016 Ramesh Dagar vs. Sunita Sehrawat Page no. 15/16 "(iii) Relief"
12.2 The suit of the plaintiff is decreed. Cost of the suit awarded in favour of the plaintiff. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
13 File be consigned to record room after due compliance.Digitally signed by
RICHA RICHA GUSAIN
GUSAIN SOLANKI
Date: 2024.03.27
SOLANKI 16:46:53 +0530
Announced in open Court today (Richa Gusain Solanki)
on 27th March, 2024 ADJ-02/South-West District
Dwarka Courts: New Delhi
CS No. 517907/2016 Ramesh Dagar vs. Sunita Sehrawat Page no. 16/16