Delhi District Court
Rameshwar Dayal Gaur vs Raj Kumar Mittal on 13 July, 2018
IN THE COURT OF DR. HARDEEP KAUR, ADJ02,
SHAHDARA, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
(Old CS No. 346/2013)
(CS No. 835/2016)
IN THE MATTER OF
1.Rameshwar Dayal Gaur S/o Sh. Ram Dutt
2. Ram Gopal s/o Sh. Ram Dutt Both r/o B84, Gali No. 7 Kanti Nagar Extn. Delhi51
3. Dinesh Kumar Sharma S/o Sh Moti Ram R/o C115, Gali No. 8, East Kanti Nagar, Delhi ........Plaintiffs Vs. Raj Kumar Mittal s/o Sh. Hem Chand Mittal r/o near Neel Giri Public School Karawal Nagar, Delhi110094 ........Defendant Date of Institution :05.08.2013 Date of Judgment :13.07.2018 Decision: Dismissed SUIT FOR DAMAGES J U D G M E N T
1. Plaintiff instituted present suit for damages for CS-835/16 Page 1 of18 defamation of Rs. 15,00,000/ against the defendant.
2. The facts set out by the plaintiff are that defendant had filed a criminal complaint case u/s 452/395/397/147/148/149/506 IPC against the plaintiffs before the Court of Ld. MM, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (jurisdiction PS Gokal Puri, Delhi) but the above said criminal case was dismissed on 23.03.2010 by Ld. MM.
Subsequent to the dismissal of the above said criminal complaint case filed by the defendant, he preferred a criminal revision petition against the above said dismissal order before the Appellate court of Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi and the said criminal revision petition was allowed by Ld. ASJ Karkardooma Courts on 13.07.2010.
Thereafter, plaintiffs had filed petition bearing Crl. M.C No. 632/11 u/s 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of the above said order dated 13.07.2010 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 26.02.2011 and Hon'ble High Court had quashed the above said order dated 13.07.2010 passed by Ld. Session Court vide order dated 11.12.2012.
During the pendency of the above said petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. the Court of Ld. MM, Delhi had passed orders for issuing the summons to the plaintiff Ram Gopal Sharma but the other plaintiffs namely Rameshwar Dayal Gaur and Dinesh Kumar Sharma have not received the summons in the said case but the CS-835/16 Page 2 of18 plaintiffs namely Rameshwar Dayal Gaur and Dinesh Kumar Sharma had appeared in another matter on 02.12.2010 in the Court of Ld. MM, KKD Courts Delhi titled as 'State vs. Raj Kumar Mittal etc." FIR no. 501/2006 u/s 3213/341/506/420/120 B/34 IPC, PS Gokalpuri, Delhi and the aforesaid plaintiff namely Rameshwar Dayal Gaur and Dinesh Kumar Sharma were detained in the case filed by the defendant against the plaintiffs and thereafter they obtained the bail from the said Court and during the pendency of the proceedings, the plaintiffs kept appearing before the said Court of Ld. MM, KKD Delhi.
On 15.07.2006, the plaintiff Dinesh Kumar lodged FIR no. 501/06 u/s 323/341/506/420/120 B/34 IPC against the defendant and his associates in PS Gokalpuri Delhi and the said case is still pending against the defendant and his associates in the Court of Ld. MM, On 14.07.2006 the defendant and his associates had tried to take the physical possession of the plot measuring 100 sq. yds. of the plaintiff namely Dinesh Kumar Sharma and one Ved Praksh Sharma situated in Gali No. 4, Rama Garden, Karawal Nagar, Delhi forcibly and unlawfully and in this regard a civil suit for permanent and mandatory injunction titled as "Dinesh Kumar Sharma versus Smt. Asha Sharma & Ors' which is pending in the Court of Ld. ACJ KKD Court, Delhi.
The status, image, reputation and honour of the CS-835/16 Page 3 of18 plaintiffs have been lowered down in the eyes of all the persons of the society as the plaintiffs have been defamed in the eyes of all the locality persons, relatives and friends unnecessarily as the defendant dragged the plaintiffs into the false and baseless litigation without any fault of the plaintiffs who had to appear before the concenred court of law and the information about the false litigation initiated by the defendant against the plaintiffs was spread among all the concerned persons of the society have now started looking down and also have been looking down on the plaintiffs contemptuously and with scant respect. The plaintiff Dinesh Kumar has been working in Govt. Service in UP, Jal Nigam Lucknow, U.P on the post of Console Operator, Sh Ram Gopal Sharma is retired Govt servant, Sh. Rameshwar Dayal Gaur has been running the business of printing press and Dinesh Kumar Sharma and Sh. Ram Gopal Sharma are the income tax payers as such all the plaintiffs have been defamed and demoralized socially, mentally, physically and financially as the plaintiffs had made the payments to the concerned advocates in the lower courts as well as in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, New Delhi for contesting the false and baseless litigations filed against the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs also suffered social and financial loss etc for which defendant is liable to redress the plaintiffs. In the above circumstances, the defendant is liable for making defamatory and false allegations and accusation against CS-835/16 Page 4 of18 the plaintiff not only in his complaint made in proceedings before the police authorities for the plaintiff being maliciously prosecuted but also in his complaint case pending before the Court of Ld. CMM KKD Courts, Delhi. The defendant has therefore, made defamatory and false statement against the plaintiff which has resulted in defaming the plaintiff in the circumstances narrated in various paragraphs of the plaint but is also responsible and liable for having lowered his dignity/reputation and causing him harassment, mental torture and agony and sufferance in reputation before the society and colleagues and other neighbors. Defendant by making deliberate, reckless, irresponsible, malicious and false allegations against the plaintiff, defendant has rendered himself liable to pay damages to the plaintiffs to the tune of of Rs. 15 lakhs. Hence, the defendant is liable to indemnify all the loss suffered by the plaintiff to the tune of Rs. 15 lakhs (Rs. 5 lakhs for each plaintiff) for tarnishing the image, reputation, status (both social and financial) in the eyes of all the concerned persons of the society.
In this regard, the plaintiff have sent a legal notice dated 17.01.2013 to the defendant through speed post on 19.01.2013 and the said notice was duly served upon the defendant but despite service of the notice, the defendant has not complied the said notice and the defendant has sent a false and CS-835/16 Page 5 of18 baseless reply. Hence, plaintiff has filed the present suit for damages.
3. Defendant has contested the present suit by filing the written statement and stated that the present suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable in law on the ground of jurisdiction, because the plaintiff no. 2 and 3 are living at Lucknow and plaintiff no. 1 Rameshwar Dayal Gaur is living in the jurisdiction of Delhi alone. It is further stated that no defamation has been caused to the plaintiffs and therefore the above said two persons have not moved any defamation case against the replying defendant.
It is further stated that contents of the present plaint clearly depicts that the counter litigations are going on between the plaintiffs and the defendant and more or less the criminal and the civil matters have been filed out of the same incident between the parties, therefore, the defendant has no intention to defame the plaintiffs.
It is further stated that litigations are still subjudice before the court of Ld. MM Karkardooma Courts, Delhi and before the Court of ACJ, KKD Courts, Delhi.
The present suit is also not maintainable since the plaintiffs have given the reference of the litigations pending between the parties, but no final decision of any court has come out till date to draw the inference of defamation and harassment CS-835/16 Page 6 of18 against the plaintiffs, therefore, in the absence of concrete proof against the replying defendant, the present claim filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable and the same deserves to be dismissed outrightly.
It is further stated that plaintiffs have not filed the proper court fee as per the court fees act and in the absence of the proper court fees, the plaint of the plaintiffs deserves to be dismissed. All other contents of the plaint are denied by defendant except the cases pending in the different courts between the parties.
4. Plaintiff filed replication to the written statement wherein plaintiff denied the contents of written statement and reiterated the averments made in plaint.
5. On the basis of pleading of the parties, the following issues were framed by ld. Predecessor of this court on 21.12.2014: I. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of damages as prayed for ? OPP.
II. Whether this court does not have territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present case? (OPD) III. Relief.
CS-835/16 Page 7 of18
6. In order to prove their case, plaintiff no. 1 examined himself as PW3 and tenderd his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW 3/1) and he has relied upon documents Ex. PW 3/1 to Ex. PW 3/7; plaintiff no. 2 examined himself as PW5 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex PW 5/A); Planitiff no. 3 examined himself as PW4 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW 4/1) and relied upon document EX PW 4/1.
Three other witnesses are also examined by the plaintiffs i.e. Ct Amit Saini (PW1) who brought the summoned record pertaining to the complaint made by the plaintiff on 23.04.2013 and proved the copy of the relevant entry as Ex PW 1/1, Sh. Rakesh Kumar (Restorer Criminal Branch from Hon'ble Delhi High Court) as PW2 who has brought the summoned record pertaining to the case Crl. M.C No. 632/2011 titled as Rameshwar Dayal Gaur & Ors. vs. State and Anr. and proved the copy of the same as Ex. PW 2/1 and Sh. Dharmender Kumar (JJA in the Court of Ld. CMM North East,Karkardooma Courts, Delhi) as PW 6 who brought record in the matter of Raj Kumar Mittal vs Rameshwar Gaur & Ors, summons of Ram Gopal Sharma s/o Ram Dutt (Ex. PW 6/1) (OSR), complaint case filed by Raj Kumar Mittal vs. Rameshwar Dayal Gaur & Ors (Ex. PW 6/2 OSR), complaint by Ram Kumar to DCP (Mark A), bail bond of Rameshwar Daya Gaur (Ex. PW 6/3), and bail bond of Dinesh Kumar Sharma (Ex. PW 6/4 OSR).
CS-835/16 Page 8 of18 Vide separate statement, plaintiffs closed their evidence on 08.09.2017. Defendant has not led his evidence.
7. This Court has heard the arguments on behalf of parties and gone through the material available on record. My issuewise findings are as under: (Issue no. 1) Onus to prove this issue was on the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs deposed in their evidence by way of affidavits (Ex PW 3/1, Ex. PW 4/1 and Ex PW 5/1) that defendant had filed a criminal complaint case u/s 452/395/397/147/148/149/506 IPC against the plaintiffs before the Court of Ld. MM, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (jurisdiction PS Gokal Puri, Delhi) but the above said criminal case was dismissed on 23.03.2010 by Ld. MM. Subsequent to the dismissal of the above said criminal complaint case filed by the defendant, defendant preferred a criminal revision petition against the above said dismissal order before Ld. ASJ, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi and the said criminal revision petition was allowed by Ld. ASJ Karkardooma Courts on 13.07.2010. Thereafter, plaintiffs had filed petition bearing Crl. M.C No. 632/11 u/s 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of the above said order dated 13.07.2010 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 26.02.2011 and Hon'ble High Court had quashed the above said order dated 13.07.2010 passed by Ld. ASJ vide order dated 11.12.2012. During the pendency of the above said petition u/s CS-835/16 Page 9 of18 482 Cr.P.C., the Court of Ld. MM, Delhi had passed orders for issuing the summons to the plaintiff Ram Gopal Sharma but the other plaintiffs namely Rameshwar Dayal Gaur and Dinesh Kumar Sharma have not received the summons of the said case but the plaintiffs namely Rameshwar Dayal Gaur and Dinesh Kumar Sharma had appeared in another matter on 02.12.2010 in the Court of Ld. MM, KKD Courts Delhi titled as 'State vs. Raj Kumar Mittal etc." FIR no. 501/2006 u/s 3213/341/506/420/120 B/34 IPC, PS Gokalpuri, Delhi and the aforesaid plaintiff namely Rameshwar Dayal Gaur and Dinesh Kumar Sharma were detained in the case filed by the defendant against the plaintiffs and thereafter they obtained the bail from the said Court and during the pendency of the proceedings, the plaintiffs kept appearing before the said Court of Ld. MM, KKD Delhi. Due to this, the status, image, reputation and honour of the plaintiffs have been lowered down in the eyes of all the persons of the society as the plaintiffs have been defamed in the eyes of all the locality persons, relatives and friends unnecessarily as the defendant dragged the plaintiffs into the false and baseless litigation without any fault of the plaintiffs.
Before analysing the cross examination of plaintiff witnesses, it is expedient to refer the law of defamation as laid down by the various Hon'ble High Courts and same are as under: CS-835/16 Page 10 of18 In case titled Rajnath Khosla vs Acharya Dr Joh R Biswas & Ors I 2013 CLT 28 (CN) wherein Honble High Court of Delhi has held in para 12 as follows: "12. Now, for deciding the present application on the basis of the averments made in the plaint, let us first look into the law of defamation. It would be relevant to reproduce the observationss of the Apex Court in the case Pandey Surender Nath Sinha vs. Bageshwari Pd. AIR 1961 Pat. 164 which had discussed the law on the defamation in full length.
A defamatory statement is one which has a tendency to injure the reputation of the person to whom it refers; which tends, that is to say, to lower him in the estimation of right thinking members of society generally and in particular to cause him to be shunned or avoided or regarded with feelings of hatred, contempt, ridicule, fear, dislike or disesteem, or to convey an imputation on him disparging or injurious to him in his office, profession, calling, trade or business. Defamation therefore is the wrong done by a person to another's reputation by words, signs, or visible representations. A wrong of defamation, as such, consists in the publication of a false and defamatory statement concerning another person without lawful justification. The word 'defamation' is the generic name for the wrong; libel and slander are particular forms of it. Defamation, therefore is of two kinds, CS-835/16 Page 11 of18 namely, libel and slander. In libel the defamatory statement is made in some permanent and visible form in writing or otherwise recorded, such as printing, typing, pictures, photographs, caricatures, effigies. In slander the defamatory statement or representation is expressed by speech or its equivalents, that is, in some other transitory form, whether visible or audible, such as, a nod, wink, smile, hissing, the fingerlanguage of the deaf and dumb, gestures or inarticulate but significant sounds. The actions of libel and slander are thus private legal remedies , the object of which is to make reparation for the private injury done by wrongful publication to a third person or persons of defamatory statements concerning the plaintiff. The defendant in these actions may prove the truth of the defamatory matter and thus show that the plaintiff has received no injury. Though there may be damage accruing from the publication, yet, if the facts published are true, the law gives no remedy by action. In an action for libel the plaintiff should prove that the statement complained of (I) refers to him; (2) is in writing (3) is defamatory, and (4) was published by the defendant to a third person or persons.
It has been held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case Shri Ram Singh Batra vs Smt Sharan Premi, 133 (2006) DLT 126 that : CS-835/16 Page 12 of18 "A complaint to a lawful authority is not actionable if it is not defamatory per se unless it is established that the complaint is false and defamatory. Thus, till before the court of law it is not established that the FIR in question is based on a false allegation, no action is even maintainable."
Same has been held in the case of Prof. Imitaz Ahmad vs. Durdana Zamir, 2009 (109) DRJ 357. wherein it was observed that : "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 publically 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 hold 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 the interference of the plaintiff (in the imputation per se and even if it is published, it does not tend to show that the defendant had tend to show that CS-835/16 Page 13 of18 the defendant had intended to lower the reputation of the plaintiff.
Record shows that PW1 has deposed in his cross examination that he has filed this case mainly on the incident of 02.12.2010 when the alleged incident took place in the Court of Ld. MM Delhi. Against the FIR registered vide FIR No. 501/2006, he deposed that he came to the Court of Ld. MM and he was detained there against the summons served upon him filed by his opposite party i.e. defendant, although he has not been summoned by the said court. However, he was present there against the alleged FIR. On the direction of the Ld. MM, he got bailed out and this is the only reason he has filed the present suit of defamation against the defendant. He further deposed that there are three cases pending in the Court at Karkardooma between him and the defendant and out of these three cases, one pertains to the criminal case and other two are of civil nature. All the above said three cases are pending as on date and PW4 Sh. Dinesh Kumar Sharma has deposed during his cross examination that this case is of defamation as without reason or any notice in the Court, he has been detained by the Court of Ld. MM, KKD Courts. He further deposed that since the judge had detained him without notice hence he has to get bail out from the court itself and due to that he has been defamed in the society and has CS-835/16 Page 14 of18 been defamed in his relation mentally therefore he he has filed this case, further PW5 has deposed during his cross examination that he has filed the suit because in their locality he was defamed when he was going to attend his office. He has been served a court notice, he felt himself defamed. The person who served the notice upon him told him that he is the person who is facing cases and this is the notice against him and this was heard by his friends. He further deposed that he can not tell the name of mohalla people or his friends before whom he was defamed. Besides this there was no any occasion for him to face the defamation or humiliation before anyone. There was no occasion for him to face humiliation in any court by the Court proceedings.
In the light of law of defamation as laid down in aforesaid judgments, this Court is of the view that merely filing a complaint to a lawful authority is not actionable if it is not defamatory per se unless it is established that the complaint is false and defamatory.
In the present suit plaintiffs themselves admitted that litigations which they have mentioned in their plaint and as well as their deposition during the cross examination, are still pending. It is for the plaintiffs herein to show that the Court has held that the complaint is false which is filed by the defendant and plaintiffs have failed to prove that the complaint filed by the CS-835/16 Page 15 of18 defendant are false, hence, no question arises that defendant has filed false case against the plaintiffs in which they are detained and because of detention they have been defamed.
Moreover, detention by lawful authority itself does not amount to defamation and plaintiffs have failed to prove that their detention is illegal and because of that they have been defamed. Further, plaintiffs neither discloses the name of any person nor examined any witness viz friends or relatives, in whose eyes their reputation has been lowered due to the complaint filed by the defendant on which they have been detained by the Court.
In view of the aforesaid discussions, plaintiffs have failed to prove that they have been defamed, hence, no question arises for granting of damages to the plaintiffs for the defamation. Hence issue no. 1 is decided against the plaintiffs. (Issue no. 2) Onus to prove this issue was on the defendant. Defendant has taken preliminary objection in his WS that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit as the plaintiff no. 2 and 3 are living at Lucknow and plaintiff no. 1 Rameshwar Dayal Gaur is living in the jurisdiction of Delhi.
Section 19 CPC is relevant here to decide the territorial jurisdiction of the Court which is as under: CS-835/16 Page 16 of18
19. Suit for compensation for wrongs to person or movables where a suit is for compensation for wrong done to the person or to movable property, if the wrong was done within the local limits of the jurisdiction of one Court and the defendant resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, within the local limits of the jurisdiction of another Court, the suit may be instituted at the option of the plaintiff in either of the said Courts." Perusal of the record shows that defendant is residing at Rama Garden Karawal Nagar, Delhi and cause of action has been arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court as plaintiffs have stated in their plaint that they are detained by the Ld. MM KKD Courts (Jurisdiction of PS Gokalpuri Delhi) and due to detention of the plaintiff by the Court on the complaint of the defendant they are defamed. In view of aforesaid provision as well as above said averments of the plaint, this Court has territorial jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the present suit. Hence, issue no. 2 is decided against the defendant.
Relief Since, issue no. 1 is decided against the plaintiffs, hence, CS-835/16 Page 17 of18 they are not entitled for damages as claimed in the present suit. The present suit is accordingly dismissed. Decree sheet be prepared. No order as to costs. File be consigned to record room.
(Typed to the dictation directly, corrected and pronounced in the open court on 13.07.2018) (Dr. Hardeep Kaur) ADJ02(SHD)/KKD/Delhi Digitally signed by HARDEEP HARDEEP KAUR KAUR Date:
2018.07.16 12:30:57 +0530 CS-835/16 Page 18 of18