Bangalore District Court
Anjanappa T.V vs Nagaraj V on 3 October, 2017
C.R.P.67 Govt. of Karnataka
Form No.9 (Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgments in Suits
(R.P.91)
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-15) AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 3rd day of October, 2017.
PRESENT:
Sri PATIL NAGALINGANAGOUDA, B.A.,LL.M.,
VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-15),
Bengaluru.
ORIGINAL SUIT No.7223/2010
PLAINTIFF : Anjanappa T.V.,
S/o. Venkatappa,
Aged about 42 years,
No.32, II Floor, Sunkalpete
Main Road, Cubbonpet,
Bangalore - 560 002.
(By Sri C.S.N., Advocate)
-VERSUS-
DEFENDANTS : 1. Nagaraj V.,
S/o. Venkatappa,
Aged about 42 years,
Residing at Thoranahalli
village, Malur taluk,
Kolar district.
2. M. Rahul,
Fathers name not known,
Major,
Editor, Printer and
Publisher, "Police News", at
Shri Omkar Printers, # 4/1,
Mahimappa Industrial
Estate, 100 Feet Road,
Jalahalli Cross, Chokka-
sandra, T. Dasarahalli Post,
Bangalore - 560 057.
-2- O.S. No.7223/2010
3. Mahendra Mishra,
Chief Executive Officer,
TV 9 News, No.13,
Rhenius Street,
Richmond Town,
Civil Station,
Bangalore.
4. Suvarna News,
No.202, 2nd Floor,
Embassy Square, No.148,
Opposite to Police
Commissioners Office,
Infantry Road,
Bangalore - 560 001,
represented by its Chief
Executive Officer.
5. Samaya 24 x 7 News,
No.10/A, 5th Floor,
Chandrakirana Building,
Kasturba Road, Bangalore -
560 001, represented by its
Chief Executive Officer.
(Defendant No.1 by Sri
K.S.R., Advocate)
(Defendants 2, 4 and 5 : Ex-parte)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Institution of the Suit : 14-10-2010
Nature of the Suit (Suit on : Suit for damages.
pronote, Suit for declaration
and possession, Suit for injun-
ction etc,)
Date of the commencement : 05-09-2013
of recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 03-10-2017
was pronounced
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Year/s Month/s Day/s
----------------------------------
Total duration : 6 years,11 months,19 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Cont'd..
-3- O.S. No.7223/2010
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against defendants 1 to 5 for judgment and decree directing the defendants 1 and 2 to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards damages along with interest at 18 per cent per annum from the date of suit till date of realization and consequential relief of injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 or anybody claiming through them from making any false and defamatory statement about the plaintiff and restrain defendants 3 to 5 and their agents from telecasting any defamatory articles in their respective electronic media and to issue mandatory injunction directing the defendants 1 and 2 to tender an unconditional apology to the plaintiff and to publish the same in their respective newspapers.
2. The brief facts of the plaint are as under -
It is contended plaintiff is a practicing Advocate, he has completed his Master Degree in Political Science and has completed his law degree from Bangalore University. The plaintiff has been practicing since 15 years at the Bar of Bangalore. The plaintiff over the period of time has gained a lot of reputation in and around Kolar and Bangalore Circles. It is submitted defendant No.1 is younger brother of the plaintiff. Plaintiff and defendant No.1 are involved in litigation over the ancestral properties. Defendant No.2 is the weekly news publisher having published the news Cont'd..
-4- O.S. No.7223/2010 which has demoralized the character of the plaintiff. It is submitted defendants 3 to 5 are the news channels who have been approached by the defendant No.1 to telecast the news which is derogatory in nature so far as plaintiff is concerned.
It is submitted plaintiff and defendant No.1 are the sons of one Venkatappa. Defendant No.1 has filed O.S. No.90/2006 seeking order of partition and separate possession before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kolar. Plaintiff being the contesting defendant contested the matter and the suit came to be dismissed in the year 2010. It is submitted it is learnt by the plaintiff defendant No.1 has filed complaint on 23-07-2008 before the Sub-Inspector of Police, Malur stating that he is resident of Toranahalli village. He has four issues, out of which first son viz., Anil was studying in first standard in Vasanti Venugopal School at Tavarekere and that on 23-07-2008, Anil Kumar had gone to get his younger sister at the adjacent road. At that point of time, Anil Kumar was kidnapped in white Tata Indica car bearing registration No.TN-23 . . . . It is submitted on receiving the said complaint, case was registered at Malur Police Station under Crime No.220/2008 for the offence under Section 363 of the I.P.C. It is submitted in the complaint defendant No.1 has not named anybody as jurisdictional police were to ascertain and apprehend the culprits.
Cont'd..
-5- O.S. No.7223/2010 It is submitted when investigation was in the progress, plaintiff was summoned to the station on 13- 11-2009 by the jurisdictional police and on the basis of some voluntary statement given by the accused in Crime No.220/2008 and recorded the statement of the plaintiff. As a matter of caution, plaintiff approached the Court and obtained anticipatory bail. It is submitted from the date of complaint till date, name of the plaintiff has not appeared either in the F.I.R. or in the charge sheet and the plaintiff totally unaware of any of the progress in the matter.
It is submitted when the things stood thus, to the shock and surprise of the plaintiff, it is learnt by the plaintiff that defendant No.1 in a Departmental Enquiry initiated by the Police Department against one Nataraj, defendant No.1 has deposed to the effect that plaintiff was involved in offence of kidnapping his son along with his cousin Muniraju and brother-in-law Narayanaswamy. The said deposition as made without any basis. Plaintiff was totally unaware of the whole incident was put to great shock and the said deposition made before the enquiring officer by the defendant has severely damaged the reputation of the plaintiff. It is submitted defendant further called for press meet on 23-08-2010 at Kolar and on 08-09-2010 and made defendant No.2 and other newspapers to publish the defamatory and derogatory news in their respective newspapers. It is submitted defendant No.1 without Cont'd..
-6- O.S. No.7223/2010 there being any material has made statement to the effect plaintiff is involved in kidnapping and the concerned police has failed to take any steps. It is submitted other daily newspapers which are the reputed daily newspapers without going in to the veracity of the statement made by defendant No.1 have widely published the news in their respective newspapers. It is submitted defendant No.2 "Police News" has published the news on 12-09-2010, the "Prajavani" has published the news on 09-09-2010, the "Samyuktha Karnataka"
has published the news on 24-08-2010 and "Sanje Vani" has published the news on 25-08-2010 and the local news daily "Kolar Shakthi" has published the news on 24-08-2010. Neither defendant No.2 nor above mentioned newspapers have looked in to the truthness of the statement and have blindly published the news. Defendant No.2 newspaper has used the possible vulgar words against the plaintiff and news published in the said newspaper appears to have been collected from defendant No.1. Defendant No.2 is supposed to have publish expose only true and correct news in his newspaper. It appears most vulgar, unimaginable, false news has been published in the second defendant newspapers. It appears the said news is published at the instance of the first defendant. It is submitted defendants 3 to 5 who are the reputed news channels have started to gather information about the plaintiff and it is also learnt by the plaintiff defendant No.1 has approached these defendants for getting the defamatory Cont'd..
-7- O.S. No.7223/2010 news telecasted in the said channels. If these defendants telecast the news in their respective
channels which have the coverage throughout the State the plaintiff and his family members would be put to irreparable injury.
It is submitted allegations against the plaintiff in nutshell is to the effect that the plaintiff is a person having bad antecedents and characterless outraging the character, status of the plaintiff by the first defendant is outside the scope of law of Press. In fact, the plaintiff is having good conduct, character, status in the society. The report and publications clearly indicate the object and intending of the defendants that they wanted to defame, undermine and degrade the status of the plaintiff in the society, therefore, defendants are liable and responsible for publication of false news. With this submission, plaintiff prayed to decree the suit.
3. On the other hand, in spite of service of summons, defendants 2, 4 and 5 have not appeared before the Court, hence defendants 2, 4 and 5 placed ex-parte.
In pursuance of summons, defendants 1 and 3 appeared through their Counsel and filed their separate written statements. The brief facts of the written statement of defendant No.1 are as under -
Cont'd..
-8- O.S. No.7223/2010 Defendant No.1 has contended suit filed by the plaintiff is false and vexatious and is liable to be dismissed in lemine. Defendant No.1 has admitted plaintiff is a practicing Advocate and further defendant pleads ignorance that plaintiff has completed his master degree and plaintiff has been practicing since 15 years and plaintiff has gained lot of reputation. Defendant No.1 has admitted that he is younger brother of plaintiff No.1 and both have involved in litigation over ancestral properties. Defendant No.1 has denied defendant No.2 has published news which has demoralized the character of the plaintiff and defendants 3 to 5 being news channels have approached the defendant No.1 for telecasting the news which derogatory in nature insofar as plaintiff is concerned. Defendant No.1 has admitted himself and plaintiff are sons of one Venkatappa and he had filed a suit of O.S. No.90/2006 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kolar. He has also admitted plaintiff being contesting defendant contested the matter. Defendant No.1 has admitted he has filed complaint before the police stating that he is resident of Toranahalli village and on 23-07-2008 his son Anil Kumar had gone to get his younger sister at the adjacent road and at that point of time Anil Kumar was kidnapped. Defendant No.1 had admitted that he has lodged complaint before Malur Police Station and it has been registered by the jurisdictional police. Defendant has denied when investigation was in progress plaintiff was summoned to the station by the jurisdictional Cont'd..
-9- O.S. No.7223/2010 police on the basis of the voluntary statement given by the accused in Crime No.220/2008. Defendant No.1 has also denied he has deposed in the Departmental Enquiry initiated by the Police Department to the effect that plaintiff was involved in the offence of kidnapping his son with his cousin Muniraju and Narayanaswamy. It is contended said contention was made without any basis. Defendant has denied that on 23-08-2010 and 08-09-2010, he has called a Press Meet to publish the defamatory and derogatory news regarding the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 has contended news published in the newspaper of defendants 3 to 5 are published on the basis of the information submitted by the concerned Investigation Officer and not by the defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 has denied allegations of the plaintiff that defendants 2 to 5 have collected information from defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 pleads ignorance questioned news so covered contained the photograph of the plaintiff with vulgar words and thereafter defendant No.1 denied averments of the plaint.
Defendant No.1 has taken contention plaintiff is his elder brother. Since from his education and now being practicing Advocate settled at Bangalore. It is submitted defendant No.1 being an agriculturist settled at Toranahalli village, Malur taluk and there is long ill- will between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 is concerned to the family properties. The plaintiff being the first plaintiff and his sister also filed partition suit Cont'd..
- 10 - O.S. No.7223/2010 against this defendant and other family members for partition in O.S. No.544/2011 and said suit is still pending for consideration. It is submitted son of the defendant viz., Anil Kumar kidnapped on 23-07-2008. In that connection Crime No.220/2008 has been registered before Malur police. Defendant lodged complaint and prayed to enquire the matter and punish the accused as per law. It is submitted defendant with great difficulties paid Rs.8,00,000/- on 29-07-2008 and after that only culprits released his son. It is submitted concerned police registered case and after enquiry and statements of other accused traced out that the plaintiff is the main cause to the crime and also kidnapping of his son. It is submitted after that concerned police registered the case against the plaintiff and therefore plaintiff has obtained anticipatory bail. It is submitted on the basis of the other accused statement and on the basis of the available document, concerned police registered the case against the plaintiff and defendant No.1 is not responsible for the said facts and circumstances.
It is submitted due to influence of the plaintiff and other political touts, police have not enquired the matter properly hence defendant approached the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P. No.17507/2010. The said Writ Petition is pending for consideration. It is submitted defendant filed application before the D.G. and I.G.P. with request to enquire the matter and he Cont'd..
- 11 - O.S. No.7223/2010 has also approached the Human Rights Commission Office. It is submitted there is prima facie material against the plaintiff to kidnap his son. Hence, being authorized news agency defendants 2 to 5 reported and published the said news and defendant No.1 is no way responsible to the news and publications. With this submission, defendant No.1 prayed to dismiss the suit.
The brief facts of the written statement of defendant No.3 is as under -
Defendant No.3 has contended suit of the plaintiff is not tenable either in law or on facts and it is liable to be dismissed in lemine. Defendant No.3 has totally denied averments of the plaint. Defendant No.3 has contended said news channel on 24 hours telecasting news in the entire State of Karnataka with an intention to create awareness of the general public and to eradicate the corruption in the society as such the defendant channel telecasted programs based on relevant information. Lastly, it is submitted plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit against defendant No.3. With this submission, defendant No.3 prayed to dismiss the suit.
4. On the basis of the above said pleadings, this Court has framed the following -
Cont'd..
- 12 - O.S. No.7223/2010
ISSUES
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that on 07.05.09 the defendant No.1 deposed before enquiring officer stating that the plaintiff is involved in kidnapping case and on 23.08.2010 when press meet was call and thereafter on 24.08.2010, 09.09.2010 and 12.09.2010 the defamatory matter was published in the newspaper with on malicious intention and which, caused loss or damage to the reputation and image of the plaintiff as alleged?
2) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled for 2.00 Lakhs rupees by way of damages along with 18% interest per annum as sought?
3) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled for permanent injunction restraining the defendants No.1 and 2 etc., from making any false and defamatory statements about the plaintiff in newspapers and the defendants No.3 to 5 etc., from telecasting any defamatory articles on news as prayed?
Cont'd..
- 13 - O.S. No.7223/2010
4) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled for mandatory injunction to direct the defendants No.1 and 2 and tender on conditional apology as prayed?
5) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled for damages, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction as sought for?
6) What Order or Decree?
5. In order to substantiate averments of the plaint, plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and got documents marked as per Exs.P.1 to P.15 and closed his side.
6. When case posted for defendants' evidence, defendant No.1 himself examined as D.W.1 and got documents marked as per Exs.D.1 to D.35.
7. I have heard arguments from both the sides. At the time of argument, both side Advocates submitted their respective notes of arguments.
8. My findings on the above Issues are as follows -
ISSUE No.1 - Negative;
ISSUE No.2 - Negative;
ISSUE No.3 - Negative;
Cont'd..
- 14 - O.S. No.7223/2010
ISSUE No.4 - Negative;
ISSUE No.5 - Negative;
ISSUE No.6 - As per final order,
for the following -
REASONS
9. ISSUE No.1 : At the time of argument,
Advocate for plaintiff has vehemently argued and submitted written argument. It is argued defendant No.1 is the younger brother of the plaintiff and plaintiff and defendant No.1 are involved in litigation over the ancestral properties. Defendant No.2 is weekly news publisher having published the news which has demoralized the character of the plaintiff defendants 3 to 5 are the news channels who have been approached by the defendant No.1 for telecasting news which is derogatory in nature so far as plaintiff is concerned. It is argued defendant No.1 has filed complaint on 23-07- 2008 before the Malur Police Station stating that his son Anil who was studying in first standard was kidnapped in a white Tata Indica car and after receiving the said complaint, case was registered in Malur Police Station under Crime No.220/2008. It is argued during the course of investigation, plaintiff was summoned to the station on 13-11-2009 by the jurisdictional police on the basis of some voluntary statements given by the accused in Crime No.220/2008 and in this regard, plaintiff has obtained anticipatory bail.
Cont'd..
- 15 - O.S. No.7223/2010
10. It is argued when things stood thus to the shock and surprise of the plaintiff it is learnt by the plaintiff that defendant No.1 in Departmental Enquiry initiated by the Police Department against one Nataraj has deposed to the effect that plaintiff herein was involved in the offence of kidnapping his son along with his cousin Muniraju and brother-in-law Narayanaswamy. It is argued the said deposition was made before the enquiry officer by the defendant No.1 has severely damaged reputation of the plaintiff. It is argued statements so made by defendant No.1 have widely published in the news in the respective newspapers by defendants 2 to 5 and they used possible vulgar words against the plaintiff with an intention to degrade and defame and caused mental agony and injury to the plaintiff. It is argued in order to prove averments of the plaint, plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and in support of his case plaintiff has produced relevant records including the crime papers of Crime No.220/2008, voluntary statement, complaint given by the defendant No.1 and questioned news published by the defendants 2 to 5. It is argued defendants 2, 4 and 5 were placed ex-parte. Though defendant No.3 filed written statement since non-payment of cost imposed by this Court, written statement of defendant No.3 cannot be considered. It is argued though defendant No.1 has taken various contention, but he has failed to establish the above said contention. Hence, plaintiff has proved that 07-05-2009 the defendant No.1 Cont'd..
- 16 - O.S. No.7223/2010 deposed before the enquiry officer stating that plaintiff is involved in kidnapping case. It is argued plaintiff has also proved in the press meet dated 23-08-2010 and thereafter defendant No.1 has given statement which are per se defamatory. It is argued defendants 3 to 5 have published in their newspaper with malicious intention which caused loss or damage to the reputation and image of the plaintiff. With this submission, Advocate for plaintiff prayed to answer Issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiff.
11. On the other hand, Advocate for defendant has argued and he has also submitted notes of argument. Sum and substance of the notes of argument on behalf of the defendant No.1 that there is no dispute that plaintiff and defendant No.1 are the brothers. It is not in dispute defendant No.1 has lodged complaint before Malur Police Station with allegation that somebody have kidnapped his son for ransom and a case has been registered in Crime No.220/2008. It is argued there is no dispute that plaintiff being brother of defendant No.1 called by the police in connection with Crime No.220/2008 on the basis of the voluntary statement given by the accused of the said case. It is argued though defendant No.1 has approached the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka with a request to give direction to the concerned police to investigate the matter and file final report in connection with Crime No.220/2008 which is pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Cont'd..
- 17 - O.S. No.7223/2010 Karnataka. It is argued even there is no dispute in this regard departmental enquiry has been initiated by the police department against one Nataraj and in the said subject matter, defendant No.1 has given his statement. It is argued statement given by defendant No.1 before the Departmental Enquiry is not defamatory one and whatever statement defendant No.1 has given it is only in respect of kidnapping of his son and with regard to voluntary statement given by the accused in the said Crime number. It is argued the statement given by the defendant No.1 before the Departmental Enquiry is not defamatory one, said statement is based on the voluntary statement recorded by the police and Plaintiff has miserably failed to prove that defendant No.1 before the Enquiry Officer has stated that plaintiff is involved in kidnapping the accused. Further, it is argued even plaintiff has failed to prove on the basis of the instigation of defendant No.1, defendant No.2 published the questioned news in the newspaper and defendants 3 to 5 have telecasted the questioned episode in their channels. It is argued in order to resist the claim of the plaintiff defendant himself examined as D.W.1 and in support of his contention, defendant has produced various documents in order to establish that there was enmity between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 pertaining to the dispute of immovable property. Lastly, it is argued plaintiff has filed this suit knowing fully well that suit against defendants is not tenable and suit is filed only to harass the defendant. With this Cont'd..
- 18 - O.S. No.7223/2010 submission, Advocate for defendant prayed to answer Issue No.1 against the plaintiff.
12. On careful perusal of the oral as well as documentary evidence and on the basis of settled position of law, this Court is of the opinion that plaintiff has miserably failed to prove that on 07-05-2009, defendant No.1 has deposed before the enquiry officer stating that plaintiff is involved in kidnapping case and plaintiff has also failed to prove on 23-08-2010 when press meet was called and thereafter on 24-08-2010, 09-09-2010and 12-09-2010, defendants 2 to 5 at the instigation of the defendant No.1 have published in the newspaper and telecasted in their channels with regard to the plaintiff with an intention to defame the plaintiff and to cause loss or damage to the reputation of the plaintiff. As rightly argued by the Advocate for the defendant there is no dispute with regard to registration of Crime No.220/2008 by Malur police station for offence under Section 363 of I.P.C. It is also not in dispute defendant No.1 has lodged complaint before the police his son Anil was kidnapped. It is also not in dispute Malur police have summoned the plaintiff on 13-11-2009 on the basis of the voluntary statement recorded by the police given by the accused. It is also not in dispute plaintiff being Advocate has obtained anticipatory bail in connection with the said crime number. Further, it is not in dispute one M. Narayana Swamy who is none other than the brother-in-law of the Cont'd..
- 19 - O.S. No.7223/2010 plaintiff gave statement before the C.C.B. police stating that he assaulted younger brother of the plaintiff by name Venkatesh and threatened and insisted with defendant No.1 to withdraw the complaint filed before the Malur police. It is not in dispute in this regard defendant No.1 has lodged another complaint about the alleged incident.
13. On perusal of the records it discloses defendant No.1 has approached Lokayukta police at Kolar against one Head Constable of Malur Police Station viz., Nataraj who was writer at that point of time with allegation that Nataraj has demanded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on the ground if defendant No.1 is able to pay Rs.5 Lakhs to the kidnappers, there should be no difficulty for him to pay bribe of Rs.2 Lakhs. On perusal of the records, it also discloses on the basis of the complaint lodged by defendant No.1, Lokayukta police conducted raid and trapped that Head Constable and in this regard departmental enquiry has been initiated against Nataraj and in the said departmental enquiry, defendant No.1 has given statement before the enquiry officer. Lastly, it is also admitted fact on the basis of he complaint filed by the defendant No.1 in Crime No.220/2008 and on the basis of the complaint lodged by defendant No.1 with Lokayukta police against Head Constable of Malur Police Station and on the basis of the departmental enquiry initiated against Nataraj, defendant No.2 being editor, printer and publisher of Cont'd..
- 20 - O.S. No.7223/2010 Police News published the article and defendants 2 to 5 being news channels have telecasted the news.
14. Keeping in mind of the above said admitted facts, now this Court has to see whether statement given by defendant No.1 before the enquiry officer and whether news published by defendant No.2 as per Exs.P.8 to P.12 are defamatory and they have published only with an intention to degrade or defame the reputation of the plaintiff. If plaintiff succeeded to prove defendant No.1 with an intention to degrade his reputation has given statement before the police certainly plaintiff is entitled for relief sought for. Admittedly, plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants seeking for damages on the ground that he has been defamed by virtue of paper publications and relying in electronic media about abduction and kidnap of minor son of the first defendant in which paper publication and electronic media plaintiff has been portrayed as the person and brain behind such abduction and kidnapping because of which reputation of the plaintiff in the eyes of the public in general is lowered and it has affected his profession.
15. In support of his case plaintiff examined as P.W.1 and got documents marked as per Exs.P.1 to P.15. Ex.P.1 is the copy of 'C' report filed by the police in Crime No.220/2008; Ex.P.2 is the copy of the complaint; Ex.P.3 is the copy of the order sheet; Ex.P.4 is copy of written statement of O.S. No.90/2006; Ex.P.5 Cont'd..
- 21 - O.S. No.7223/2010 is copy of statement recorded by the Deputy Superintendent of Police i.e., enquiry officer. Plaintiff
has mainly relied the contents of Ex.P.5 to file the present suit. On perusal of contents of entire Ex.P.5, this Court is of the opinion that nowhere defendant No.1 has given statement with an intention to defame or degrade the reputation of the plaintiff. Whatever he has stated in his statement which is marked as per Ex.P.5 is only with regard to incident took place about kidnap of his son and relates to his son by the kidnappers, threaten given by Narayanaswamy and others with regard to demand made by Nataraj who is Head Constable of Malur Police Station. In Ex.P.5, no doubt defendant No.1 has stated with regard to involvement of his brother i.e., plaintiff in the incident of kidnapping of his son and he has stated said statement on the basis of the statement recorded by the police in Crime No.220/2008. Admittedly, plaintiff has not produced copies of the said voluntary statements before this Court for the reasons best known to him. On the other hand, defendant No.1 has produced statement given by the plaintiff before Malur police station in Crime No.220/2008 which is marked as per Ex.D.7. Defendant No.1 has also produced voluntary statement given by M. Narayanaswamy as per Ex.D.20 as accused of Crime No.220/2008 in his voluntary statement he has stated as under -
Cont'd..
- 22 - O.S. No.7223/2010
"2008gÀ dįÉÊ wAUÀ¼À°è £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¯ÁAiÀÄgï
DAd£À¥Àà ¸ÉÃjPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀÄ®¨ÀsªÁV ¸ÀA¥ÁzÀ£É ªÀiÁqÀ§ºÀÄzÉA§ zÀÄgÁ¸É¬ÄAzÀ DAd£À¥Àà£ÀªÀjUÀÆ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ CtÚ£ÁzÀ £ÁUÀgÁeïgÀªÀjUÀÆ D¹ÛAiÀÄ ºÀAaPÉAiÀÄ «ZÁgÀªÁV vÀPÀgÁjzÀÄÝ, ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÁUÀgÁeïgÀªÀgÀÄ PÁågÉmï ªÁå¥ÁgÀzÀ°è ºÉaÑ£À ºÀtUÀ½¹gÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ K£ÁzÀgÀÆ ªÀiÁr DvÀ£À£ÀÄß ªÀÄlÖºÁPÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DvÀ£À°ègÀĪÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ®¥ÀmÁ¬Ä¸À¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ DAd£À¥ÀàgÀªÀgÀÄ £À£ÉÆßA¢UÉ «µÀAiÀÄ w½¹, §gÀĪÀ ºÀtzÀ°è ¸Àé®à ¸Àé®à ¨ÉÃgÉAiÀĪÀjUÉ PÉÆlÄÖ G½zÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß £Á«§âgÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄ£ÁV ºÀAaPÉƼÉÆîÃt JAzÀÄ w½¹ CzÀPÁÌV ¤ªÀÄä vÀªÀÄä ²ªÀPÀĪÀiÁgï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DvÀ£À ¸ÉßûvÀ ¸ÀÄgÉñÀ£À£ÀÄß M¦à¸ÀÄ JAzÀÄ w½¹zÀ£ÀÄ, PÉ®¸À AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉAzÀÄ PÉýzÀÝPÉÌ £ÁUÀgÁd£À ªÀÄUÀ£À£ÀÄß QqÁß¥ï ªÀiÁr¸ÉÆÃt CzÀPÉÌ®è £À£Àß §½ d£ÀjzÁÝgÉ. C®èzÉ £ÁUÀgÁdÄ zÀqÀØ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ C«zÁåªÀAvÀ£ÁVzÀÄÝ, ºÉzÀjPɬÄAzÀ £ÁªÀÅ PÉýzÀµÀÄÖ ºÀt PÉÆqÀÄvÁÛ£É JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀ£ÀÄ. CzÀgÀAvÉ £Á£ÀÄ ²ªÀPÀĪÀiÁgï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀÄgÉñÀ£À£ÀÄß M¦à¹, ¸ÀzÀj PÀÈvÀåzÀ°è J®ègÀÆ ¨sÁVAiÀiÁV £ÁUÀgÁd£À PÀqɬÄAzÀ QqÁß¥ï ªÀiÁrzÀ ªÀÄUÀ£À£ÀÄß ©qÀĪÀ ¸À®ÄªÁV gÀÆ. 5 ®PÀë gÀÆ.UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzɪÀÅ".
16. Defendant No.1 has also produced voluntary statement of Shivakumr and Suresha as per Exs.D.21 and D.22. Ex.D.23 is requisition submitted by Malur Cont'd..
- 23 - O.S. No.7223/2010 police for issuance of body warrant. Ex.D.24 is the
requisition submitted by the police to reopen the case after investigation in which 'C' report has been filed in connection with Crime No.220/2008. On perusal of the above said records, I am of the opinion that plaintiff has miserably failed to prove that defendant No.1 has intentionally deposed before the enquiry officer to degrade the reputation of the plaintiff. Further, this Court is of the opinion that plaintiff miserably failed to prove defendants have published the news with malicious intention and at the instigation of defendant No.1.
17. Plaintiff has produced identity card issued by the Karnataka State Bar Council marked as per Ex.P.6, it is no way helpful to the plaintiff to prove the above said issue. Ex.P.7 is copy of anticipatory bail order granted by the District Court, Kolar. No doubt plaintiff has obtained anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.220/2008, that itself is not a ground to come to conclusion that defendant No.1 has lodged false complaint before the police as per Ex.D.5. He has not at all made any allegation against the plaintiff of the present case. Even on perusal of Ex.P.8 which is another complaint filed by the defendant which is registered in Crime No.247/2009 defendant No.1 has not at all made any allegation against the plaintiff that plaintiff has involved in the incident pertaining to Cont'd..
- 24 - O.S. No.7223/2010 kidnap of his son. Hence, contents of Ex.P.7 not helpful to the case of the plaintiff to prove the above said issue.
18. Plaintiff has very much relied contents of Exs.P.8, P.8(a), P.9, P.9(a), P.10, P.11, P.11(a), P.12 and P.12(a) and plaintiff contended news published as referred above are defamatory and they have published only with intention to degrade his reputation. On perusal of Ex.P.8(a), the caption is shown as '¨Á®PÀ£À C¥ÀºÀgÀtzÀ ¸ÀÄvÀÛ ºÀUÀgÀtzÀ ºÀÄvÀÛ ¹¹© ¥ÉǰøÀgÀÄ ©aÑlÖ QqÁåå¥ïgÀºÀ¸Àå'. No doubt in the above said news, to some extent news published with regard to involvement of the plaintiff in kidnapping the son of defendant No.1, but that itself is not a ground defendants have published news on the basis of the false information with intention to degrade the reputation of the plaintiff. Whatever the news published in the newspaper which are marked as per Exs.P.8 to P.12, the said contents are based on two complaints filed by the defendant No.1 and those publications are based on departmental enquiry initiated by the police against one Nataraj who his Head Constable and on the basis of the voluntary statement recorded by the police given by the accused in Crime No.220/2008. Under these circumstances, Ex.P.9(a) is the news published under the caption 'C¥ÀgÁ¢üUÀ½UÉ ²PÉë ¤ÃqÀ®Ä MvÁÛAiÀÄ'. Ex.P.10 is the news published under the caption 'C¥ÀºÀgÀtPÁgÀjUÉ ªÀiÁ®ÆgÀÄ ¥ÉǰøÀgÀ PÀĪÀÄäPÀÄÌ DgÉÆÃ¥À'. Ex.P.11(a) is the news published under the caption Cont'd..
- 25 - O.S. No.7223/2010 '¥ÀÉưøÀgÀÄ DgÉÆæAiÉÆA¢UÉ ±Á«ÄîÄ', lastly, Ex.P.12(a) is the news published under the caption 'ªÀÄUÀ£À C¥ÀºÀgÀtPÁgÀgÀ£ÀÄß §A¢ü¸ÀĪÀ°è ¥ÉǰøÀgÀÄ C¸ÀqÉØ' are not the defamatory news. Whatever the news published in Exs.P.8 to P.12 is in respect of negligence on the part of the police in arresting the accused of Crime No.220/2008. No doubt there are references with regard to involvement of the plaintiff in the above said news, but it is not a ground to come to conclusion said news are published with intention to defame or degrade the reputation of the plaintiff.
19. Because it is settled principle of law that even registering of criminal case and acquitting of the said case cannot be treated as malicious prosecution unless malice is established by the plaintiff. In support of the above said principle of law, I would like to rely the decision of our Hon'ble High Court reported in ILR 2007 KAR 4851 in a case W.E. Sathyanarayana -versus- W.S. Vijayakumar. wherein it is held "closure of the criminal case cannot be held as malicious prosecution unless it is shown that the complaint filed by the defendant is false and acquittal order is passed by the jurisdictional Magistrate on clear finding that initiation of the criminal case is based on false complaint. When this being the settled principle of law, this Court is of the opinion that plaintiff has failed to prove Issue No.1 in his favour.
Cont'd..
- 26 - O.S. No.7223/2010
20. Ex.P.13 to P.15 are the documents confronted to P.W.1. In fact, contents of those documents helpful to the case of the defendant to resist the claim of the plaintiff.
21. Apart from this in the cross-examination, P.W.1 has clearly admitted since long time, dispute is pending between him and D.W.1 pertaining to immovable property. He has admitted with regard to pendency of suit of O.S. No.477/1995 for relief of partition. Further, he has admitted there is dispute with regard to the Will dated 06-01-1999 and there was also proceeding pending between the Assistant Commissioner, Kolar i.e., R.A. No.11/2006-2007. He has further admitted with regard to pendency of O.S. No.8436/2015 between them. He has admitted in O.S. No.8436/2015 in all he has filed 24 interim applications as per Ex.D.2. Further, he has admitted contents of Ex.D.1 to D.6. In the cross-examination, he has specifically admitted in the month of November 2009, he came to know that accused of Crime No.220/2008 have given their voluntary statement stating that they committed crime with his involvement. He has specifically admitted though he came to know about recording of voluntary statement in the month of November 2009 by the police, till today he has not taken any action against those accused. He has further admitted police summoned him, recorded his statement as per Ex.D.7. Further, he has admitted he has not Cont'd..
- 27 - O.S. No.7223/2010 taken any action against the police with regard to contents of Ex.D.7. Further, he pleads ignorance with regard to initiation of departmental enquiry against one Nataraj who was working as Head Constable in Malur Police Station. He has specifically admitted in page No.10 of Ex.P.8 it has published with regard to statement given by Narayanaswamy before C.C.B. police along with photo of defendant No.1 and his son. These are the admissions of P.W.1 not helpful to the case of the plaintiff to prove Issue No.1 in his favour.
22. Now, this Court has to see whether defendants have succeeded in resisting the allegation of the plaintiff. Defendants 2, 4 and 5 placed ex-parte. Since plaintiff has failed to prove Issue No.1, question of resisting the claim of the plaintiff by defendants 2, 4 and 5 does not arise. Defendant No.3 has filed written statement and in his written statement, defendant No.3 has taken specific contention defendant No.3 is a news channel telecasting the news in the entire state of Karnataka with an intention to create awareness to the general public and to eradicate corruption in the society as such defendant No.3 channel telecasted the programmes based on relevant information. Admittedly, plaintiff has not produced any video clippings or C.D. in order to establish defendant No.3 channel telecasted programmes with intention to defame or degrade his reputation in the absence of relevant records defendants 3 to 5 have telecasted the news pertaining to him which Cont'd..
- 28 - O.S. No.7223/2010 are defamatory, this Court is of the opinion that suit filed by the plaintiff against defendants 2 to 5 is deserves to be dismissed.
23. In order to resist the claim of the plaintiff, defendant No.1 himself examined as D.W.1. In his evidence he has specifically deposed he is not liable to pay any kind of damages to the plaintiff as claimed in the plaint. Further, he has deposed in fact his son was kidnapped on 23-07-2008 from near his house, therefore he has lodged complaint before the police which is registered in Crime No.220/2008. Further, he has deposed on 23-07-2008 he received phone call to his mobile number and said person informed him that if the ransom amount of Rs.10 Lakhs is not paid to him by the morning of the next day, his kidnapped son will be killed. Further, he has deposed after receiving phone call on the very next day, he gave statement before the jurisdictional police and police incorporated Section 363, 363-A of I.P.C. Further, he has deposed again he received phone call from unknown persons till 29-07- 2008 and on such last call, some persons who called him demanded to pay sum of Rs.5 Lakhs and asked him to come with the said amount near Petrol Bunk of Hosur. Further deposed on 29-07-2008, he sent his younger brother along with his driver with the sum of money by way of cash where they found 5 persons were wearing helmets with weapons along with his kidnapped son at about 5:30 a.m. Further, he has deposed after Cont'd..
- 29 - O.S. No.7223/2010 collecting the said sum, his younger brother and driver were asked to come back at the same place at about 2:30 p.m. and on the same day, kidnappers handed over his son to his brother and driver.
24. Further, he has deposed jurisdictional police instead of making necessary investigation on the complaint filed by him and apprehend accused persons and one Head Constable viz., Nataraj threatened him of implicating him in a case on the ground that he has lodged false complaint with police. Further, he has deposed in addition to it said Head Constable demanded bribe of Rs.2,00,000/- from him to see that no case is filed against him and in this regard he has lodged complaint before the Lokayukta at Kolar who have trapped the said Head Constable in his presence. Further, he has deposed three accused persons viz., Narayanaswamy, Shivakumar and Suresh apprehended by Hennur police and they have given their voluntary statement mentioning the involvement of the plaintiff. Further, he has deposed though he has filed Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court seeking for investigation by the C.B.I. as he has lost faith in the local police, the said Writ Petition is pending. Lastly, he has deposed though he has not at all made any allegation against the plaintiff with regard to involvement of the plaintiff in the kidnap process, plaintiff has filed this suit against him for wrongful gain.
Cont'd..
- 30 - O.S. No.7223/2010
25. In support of his contention, defendant has produced in all 35 documents which are marked as per Exs.D.1 to D.35. In my considered view, evidence of D.W.1 and contents of Exs.D.1 to D.35 are sufficient for defendant No.1 to resist the claim of the plaintiff. Though D.W.1 cross-examined at length nothing has been brought on record to disbelieve his evidence. Admittedly, plaintiff has not produced any piece of document to show defendant No.1 by colluding with defendants 2 to 5 has dragged the name of the plaintiff in Crime No.220/2008. At the cost of repetition, I would like to say it is not the allegation made by the defendant No.1 with regard to involvement of the plaintiff in Crime No.220/2008 and on the other hand, accused of Crime No.220/2008 have given their voluntary statement stating that they have kidnapped the son of defendant No.1 at the instigation of the plaintiff. Under these circumstances, without any hesitation, it is to be held defendant No.1 has successfully resisted the claim of the plaintiff. Hence, my answer to above Issue is in negative.
26. ISSUE NOs.2 TO 5 : Since plaintiff No.1 miserably failed to prove Issue No.1, certainly plaintiff is not entitled for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- by way of damages along with 18 per cent interest per annum. Since plaintiff No.1 has not proved Issue No.1, he is not entitled for permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 and 2 from making any false and defamatory Cont'd..
- 31 - O.S. No.7223/2010 statements about the plaintiff in the newspapers of defendants 3 to 5 from telecasting any defamatory articles. Since plaintiff has failed to prove Issue No.1, certainly plaintiff is not entitled for mandatory injunction to direct the defendants 1 and 2 to tender unconditional apology and lastly plaintiff is not entitled for relief of damages permanent injunction as well as mandatory injunction. Hence, my answers to Issue Nos.2 to 5 are in negative.
27. ISSUE No.6 : For my reasons and discussion on the above Issues, I proceed to pass the following -
ORDER Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants is hereby dismissed with cost.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to Judgment Writer, transcribed by him, revised by me and after corrections, pronounced in open Court on this the 3rd day of October, 2017.) (PATIL NAGALINGANAGOUDA) VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, An&/- Bengaluru.
Cont'd..
- 32 - O.S. No.7223/2010
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
Examined on:
P.W.1 : T.V. Anjanappa 05-09-2013
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF:
Ex.P.1 : Certified copy of 'C' report filed in Malur Police Station Crime No.220/2008. Ex.P.2 : Certified copy of plaint of O.S.No.90/2006. Ex.P.3 : Certified copy of order sheet of O.S. No.90/2006.
Ex.P.4 : Certified copy of written statement of O.S. No.90/2006.
Ex.P.5 : Certified copy of statement of B. Nagaraj. Ex.P.6 : Identity card issued by Bar Council. Ex.P.7 : Certified copy of entire order sheet in Criminal Miscellaneous No.668/2009. Ex.P.8 : The Police News weekly dated 12-09-2010; Ex.P.8(a) : A relevant portion marked in Ex.P.8. Ex.P.9 : Prajavani daily newspaper dated 9-9-2010; Ex.P.9(a) : A relevant portion marked in Ex.P.9. Ex.P.10 : Samyuktha Karnataka daily newspaper dated 24-08-2010;
Ex.P.10(a) : A relevant portion marked in Ex.P.10.
Ex.P.11 : Sanjevani daily newspaper
dated 25-8-2010;
Ex.P.11(a) : A relevant portion marked in Ex.P.11. Ex.P.12 : Kolara Shakthi daily newspaper dated 24-08-2010;
Ex.P.12(a) : A relevant portion marked in Ex.P.12. Ex.P.13 : Certified copy of Will dated 03-11-2011; Ex.P.13(a) : Signature.
Ex.P.14 : Certified copy of deposition of O.S. No.544/2011.
Ex.P.15 : Certified copy of statement of Crime No. 202/2008 (for identification purpose).
Cont'd..
- 33 - O.S. No.7223/2010
3. WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANTS:
D.W.1 : V. Nagaraj 16-11-2016
4.DOCUMENT MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS:
Ex.D.1 : Certified copy of Vakalath of O.S. No.8436/2005.
Ex.D.2 : Certified copies of Applications and Memorandum of Facts of O.S. 8436/2005. Ex.D.3 : Copy of legal notice dated 09-10-2006. Ex.D.4 : Copy of legal notice dated 16-10-2016. Ex.D.5 : Certified copy of complaint.
Ex.D.6 : Certified copy of F.I.R. Ex.D.7 : True copy of statement of plaintiff in Crime
No.220/2008 of Malur Police Station.
Ex.D.8 : Copy of complaint. Ex.D.9 : Copy of F.I.R.
Ex.D.10 : Certified copy of plaint of O.S. 544/2011. Ex.D.11 : Certified copy of Proceedings before the Tahsildar, Malur in RRT No.90/2005-06. Ex.D.12 : Certified copy of Proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner, Kolar in R.A. No.11/2006-07.
Ex.D.13 : Certified copy of complaint dated 23-7-2008.
Ex.D.14 : Certified copy of FIR in Cr. No.220/2008. Ex.D.15 : True copy of Application submitted to Court requesting to incorporate Section 363 and 364(A) of I.P.C.
Ex.D.16 : Certified copy of FIR in Cr. No.9/2008. Ex.D.17 : Certified copy of charge sheet. Ex.D.18 : Certified copy of order dated 05-06-2009 issuing sanction for prosecution of Nataraj, Head Constable.
Cont'd..
- 34 - O.S. No.7223/2010 Ex.D.19 : Certified copy of charge sheet.
Exs.D.20 : True copies of voluntary statements of to D.22 accused in Crime No.202/2008.
Ex.D.23 : Certified copy of application made to Court for issuance of body warrant.
Ex.D.24 : Certified copy of application made to Court for grant of permission to continue investigation.
Ex.D.25 : Copy of complaint under Section 35 of Advocates' Act.
Ex.D.26 : Certified copy of bail application under Section 437 of Cr.P.C.
Ex.D.27 : Certified copy of objections to bail application.
Ex.D.28 : Order on bail application in Cr. No.220/2008.
Ex.D.29 : Certified copy of order passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.668/2009.
Ex.D.30 : Certified copy of orders in W.P. No.17507/2010 (GM-Police).
Ex.D.31 : Certified copy of orders in W.P. No.18375/2011 (GM-Police).
Ex.D.32 : Certified copy of letter dated 22-07-2015 addressed to the J.M.F.C., Malur requesting to take report of investigation from the Superintendent of Police, Kolar. Exs.D.33 : Certified copies of reminders. and D.34 Ex.D.35 : Certified copy of order sheet in W.P. No.897/2016 (GM-Police).
(PATIL NAGALINGANAGOUDA) VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, An&/- Bengaluru.
Cont'd..