Delhi District Court
Smt. Tara Devi vs Smt. Geeta Devi on 28 February, 2014
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. LAL SINGH,
ADJ03 (SW), DWARKA COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
Suit No. 152/10
Smt. Tara Devi
W/o. Sh. Narender Singh,
R/o. C12B, Bharat Vihar,
Kakrola, New Delhi. ............Plaintiff
Versus
Smt. Geeta Devi
W/o. Sh. Mahesh Kumar
R/o. House No.C45B, Bharat Vihar,
Kakrola, New Delhi ............Defendant.
Date of Institution of the Suit: 15/07/2010
Date on which reserved for Judgment: 11/02/2014
Date on which judgment passed : 28/02/2014
JUDGMENT:
1 By this judgment, I shall dispose of the suit for damages on account of defamation in the tune of Rs.5,02,200/ filed by the plaintiff Suit No.152/10 Smt. Tara Devi Vs. Smt. Geeta Devi 2 against the defendant.
2 The brief relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiff is residing at C12B, Bharat Vihar, Kakrola, New Delhi alongwith her family members.
3 It is alleged by the plaintiff in the plaint that defendant in connivance with Sh. Ram Ashre, Smt. Bimlesh, Smt. Gyanwati, Sh. Rajesh and others had not been allowing the plaintiff to lead a peaceful life and constantly threatening the plaintiff and her family member of dire consequences and on one such occasion had caused injuries on the person of the plaintiff for which MLC was also recorded and a criminal complaint is already pending adjudication before Ld. Concerned M.M. It is also alleged by the plaintiff that daughter of the defendant namely Ms. Ritu Kumari had left the home, of her own accord, but defendant intentionally and deliberately filed a complaint with the Police Station Suit No.152/10 Smt. Tara Devi Vs. Smt. Geeta Devi 3 P.S. Dwarka and directly named the plaintiff that the defendant had suspicion that plaintiff was instrumental in getting Ms. Ritu Kumari abducted and at the instance of the defendant, an FIR under section 365 IPC was got registered on 21/7/2009 vide FIR No.320/2009 with P.S. Dwarka. It is also stated that after the registration of the FIR, the police of P.S. Dwarka started threatening the plaintiff that she would be arrested any day and almost on day to day basis visited the house of the plaintiff. It is also averred that husband of the plaintiff namely Narender Singh who was at that relevant time working at Raddison Hotel, Indore, M.P., had to leave the job and had to return to Delhi to safeguard the interest of the plaintiff and to see that she may not the implicated in the false and frivolous case. Plaintiff further averred that due to the false implication in the FIR No.320/2009, the children of the plaintiff had to suffer a lot as son of the plaintiff namely Master Manish Chaudhary was studying in 11th Suit No.152/10 Smt. Tara Devi Vs. Smt. Geeta Devi 4 class in Sanjivani Public School could not appear for his exams and one precious year of his education was lost. Similarly, the daughter Ms. Deep Shikha suffered mental torture, harassment and agony due to acts and deeds of the defendant and also the reputation of the plaintiff had been maligned in the public at large more particularly in neighbourhood and in relations and family friends circle and also the husband of the defendant had to leave his job in Raddison Hotel, Indore, M.P. It is stated that the said FIR No.320/2009 was cancelled on 3/3/2010 by ACP Dwarka as nothing incriminating was found against the plaintiff and even the daughter of defendant had not supported the FIR while getting her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. Further, it was informed to the plaintiff through RTI vide letter dated 19/3/2010, that the girl namely Ritu Kumari was recovered from the village Tikri, Allahabad, UP. Plaintiff contended that reputation of the plaintiff had been maligned in Suit No.152/10 Smt. Tara Devi Vs. Smt. Geeta Devi 5 the public at large and more particularly in the neighbourhood and in the relations. The plaintiff also sent the legal notice to the defendant vide legal notice dt. 11/5/2010. Plaintiff claims damages of Rs.5,00,000/ (Rupees Five Lacs) on account of defamation by the acts and deeds of defendant and Rs.2,200/ as cost of the legal notice dt. 11/5/2010. 4 As per plaintiff, cause of action arose on 21/7/2009 when the defendant made a complaint to the police station of PS Dwarka and directly named the plaintiff. Further cause of action arose when the plaintiff sought information under RTI Act and office of the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, SW District, Delhi vide letter dt. 19/3/2010 informed that the FIR NO.320/09 registered with PS. Dwarka had been cancelled on 3/3/2010 and finally cause of action arose when the legal notice dt. 11/5/2010 was got served on the defendant. 5 Defendant was duly served and filed WS. In the WS, Suit No.152/10 Smt. Tara Devi Vs. Smt. Geeta Devi 6 defendant took preliminary objections stating that present suit is liable to be rejected as same has been filed without cause of action and further the present suit is not sustainable as plaintiff has concocted a false story and has filed the suit just to harass the defendant. It is also stated by the defendant that present suit is bad under the law for misjoinder and non joinder of necessary parties. It is also denied by the defendant that the defendant in connivance with Sh. Ram Ashre, Smt. Bimlesh, Smt. Gyanwati, Sh. Rajesh and others had not been allowing the plaintiff and threatening her family members for dire consequences and caused injuries on the person of the plaintiff. It is also contended by the defendant that she had filed a complaint on the basis of doubt as her daughter Ms. Ritu, always used to talk with the plaintiff and thereafter, she was missed. It is further stated by the defendant that the police had not taken any action against the plaintiff on her complaint as the police had not visited the Suit No.152/10 Smt. Tara Devi Vs. Smt. Geeta Devi 7 house of plaintiff nor made any inquiry from the plaintiff. It is also contented that husband of the plaintiff namely Narender Singh is unemployed and he always used to present at his house. It is specifically denied by the defendant that plaintiff has suffered a lot as the son of the plaintiff could not appear for his exam. It is stated that defendant did not disclose the name of son and daughter of plaintiff in her complaint to the police, hence no question of physical torture, harassment and agony to them, due to the act and deed of the defendant. In the WS, defendant denied all the allegation and averments made by the plaintiff in the plaint and also denied receiving of any notice as alleged and contended that present suit is filed with malafide intention and plaintiff is not liable for any amount as claimed by her.
6 Thereafter, plaintiff has also filed the replication to the WS. In the replication, plaintiff reiterated the averments made in the plaint. In Suit No.152/10 Smt. Tara Devi Vs. Smt. Geeta Devi 8 the replication, plaintiff also denied the averments and allegation of the defendant made in the WS.
7 On the basis of pleadings, on 23/12/2010 the following issues were framed in the present matter:
1) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for misjoinder and non joinder of necessary parties?.......OPD.
2) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form?...........OPD
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of amount as claimed in the suit on account of damages?...........OPP
4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest, as claimed?...OPP
5) Relief.
8 Thereafter, plaintiff has led the plaintiff's evidence and examined herself as PW1. Plaintiff has filed evidence by way of affidavit vide Ex.PW1/A. Plaintiff has been cross examined by the defendant. Apart from plaintiff, no other witness was examined on behalf of the plaintiff.
Suit No.152/10
Smt. Tara Devi Vs. Smt. Geeta Devi 9 9 Defendant has also examined herself in her defense evidence as DW1. The defendant has also filed the evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW1/A. The defendant was also cross examined on behalf of plaintiff.
10 I have heard the arguments on behalf of both the parties. 11 Counsel for plaintiff submitted that though the daughter of defendant namely Ms. Ritu Kumari had left the house of the defendant at her own accord but defendant intentionally with deliberate and malafide intention filed a complaint with the PS. Dwarka mentioning directly the name of the plaintiff that the defendant had suspicion that the plaintiff was instrumental in getting Ms. Ritu Kumari abducted and at the instance of defendant, an FIR bearing No.320/2009 P.S. Dwarka under section 365 IPC was got registered on 21/7/2009 against the plaintiff. Counsel for plaintiff argued that as the police of PS Dwarka started threatening the Suit No.152/10 Smt. Tara Devi Vs. Smt. Geeta Devi 10 plaintiff that she would be arrested any day and due to that reason the husband of the defendant had to return to Delhi to safeguard the interest of the plaintiff from false implication in the case and due to that very reason, the plaintiff's husband also had to leave the job at Raddison Hotel, Indore, M.P. He further argued that due to the false implication of the plaintiff in the FIR No.320/2009, the children of the plaintiff had also suffered a lot and the son of the plaintiff could not appear in his exam and lost one precious year and her daughter also suffered harassment and agony. Counsel for plaintiff also submitted that reputation of the plaintiff was also maligned in public as well as in neighbourhood and in the relation. He submitted that the FIR no.320/2009 was cancelled as nothing incriminating was found against the plaintiff and also daughter of defendant has not supported the FIR in her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. Counsel for plaintiff submitted that defendant is liable for Suit No.152/10 Smt. Tara Devi Vs. Smt. Geeta Devi 11 damages as claimed by the plaintiff, on account of defamation. 12 On the other hand, counsel for defendant submitted that the plaintiff has concocted a false story and present suit is filed only to harass the defendant. He also submitted that the suit is not maintainable for misjoinder and nonjoinder of the parties. Counsel for defendant argued that as the daughter of defendant namely Ms. Ritu Kumari always used to talk with the plaintiff and also as she was missed during that period, hence, on the basis of doubt the defendant filed the said complaint against the plaintiff. He also argued that the police has not taken any action against the plaintiff. Defendant's counsel also submitted that husband of the plaintiff namely Narender Singh was unemployed at that time and always used to present in his house. Counsel for the defendant argued that the plaintiff is fond of filing false and frivolous complaint against the neighbourer and no one in the locality even talked with the plaintiff. Suit No.152/10
Smt. Tara Devi Vs. Smt. Geeta Devi 12 Counsel for defendant submitted that no defamation was ever caused to the plaintiff by the defendant and also denied that the reputation of plaintiff was maligned in the public at large as well as in neighbourers and in relations. Counsel for defendant submitted that there is no merit in the suit and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
13 I have considered the rival submission and perused the file and analyzed the evidence on the record.
14 My issuewise findings are as under:
15 ISSUE NO.1
Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for misjoinder and nonjoinder of necessary parties?.......OPD.
The onus to prove this issue is upon the defendant. The contention of defendant is that though the plaintiff has stated in the plaint that the defendant in connivance with Sh. Ram Ashre, Smt. Bimlesh, Smt. Gianwati, Sh. Ragesh and others had not been allowing the plaintiff to Suit No.152/10 Smt. Tara Devi Vs. Smt. Geeta Devi 13 lead a peaceful life and constantly has been threatening the plaintiff and her family members of dire consequences and on one such of occasion had caused injuries on the person of plaintiff for which MLC was recorded and criminal complaint is pending adjudication before the concerned Magistrate, but the plaintiff has not made parties to the above mentioned person in the present suit and as such present suit is not maintainable for nonjoinder and misjoinder of the necessary parties. 16 The present suit has been filed against the defendant by the plaintiff for the defendant's making allegation against the plaintiff in the complaint given to the police, wherein the defendant stated that her daughter used to talk with plaintiff Tara and she had doubt/suspicion that the plaintiff was instrumental in getting her daughter Ms. Ritu Kumari abducted. On the basis of the said complaint of the defendant, the FIR No. 320/2009 P.S. Dwarka dt. 21/7/2009 was lodged. The present Suit No.152/10 Smt. Tara Devi Vs. Smt. Geeta Devi 14 defamation suit is filed against the defendant for making allegations against the plaintiff in the said complaint. Other persons whose name has been taken by the plaintiff in the plaint that they also in connivance with defendant had not been allowing the plaintiff to lead peaceful life and constantly threatening the plaintiff and on one such occasion the injury was also caused on the person of plaintiff, but these allegations of the plaintiff are not relevant in the present suit filed against the defendant.
The plaintiff has not alleged that FIR NO.320/2009 has been also lodged against the plaintiff by the defendant in connivance of above named persons.
17 Moreover, the FIR No.320/2009 PS. Dwarka was lodged by the defendant for missing of her daughter and there was no role of any other persons as alleged by the plaintiff, in lodging the above said FIR. Hence, there is no need for making party to the above named other Suit No.152/10 Smt. Tara Devi Vs. Smt. Geeta Devi 15 persons in the present suit as there is no specific allegation against those persons with regard to the FIR No.320/2009 P.S. Dwarka dt. 21/7/2009 that the FIR NO. 320/2009 P.S. Dwarka has also been lodged against the plaintiff by the defendant in connivance with above named person namely Sh. Ram Ashre, Smt. Bimlesh, Smt. Gyanwati and Sh. Rajesh and others. The present suit is for damages for defamation for the complaint made by the defendant mentioning the name of the plaintiff in FIR No.320/2009 and the said FIR has been lodged by the defendant only, hence, above named persons have no connection with regard to the present suit. Moreover, it is prerogative of the plaintiff to decide as to against whom or against which party plaintiff has to file the suit. Plaintiff can not be compelled or forced to file a case against any particular person or parties, unless they are necessary party to the suit. Hence, except the present defendant, no other person or party is necessary party to the present suit. Suit No.152/10
Smt. Tara Devi Vs. Smt. Geeta Devi 16 Therefore, the defendant has failed to prove the issue No.1 and accordingly this issue is decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
18 ISSUE NO.2
Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form?...........OPD.
The onus to prove this issue is also upon the defendant. The defendant has not stated in her WS or in evidence as to how the suit is not maintainable in the present form. The present suit is for damages for defamation for making allegation against the plaintiff in the FIR bearing No.320/2009 P.S. Dwarka. The parties to the suit reside in Dwarka, FIR No.320/2009 was also lodged in P.S. Dwarka, hence, the suit is very well maintainable against the defendant. Defendant has failed to prove that the suit is not maintainable in the present form. Accordingly, this issue is Suit No.152/10 Smt. Tara Devi Vs. Smt. Geeta Devi 17 decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff. 19 ISSUE NO.3.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of amount as claimed in the suit on account of damages?...........OPP The onus to prove this issue is upon the plaintiff. As per plaintiff, the defendant intentionally and deliberately named the plaintiff in the complaint lodged by the defendant wherein the defendant stated that defendant had suspicion that the plaintiff was instrumental in getting Ms. Ritu Kumari daughter of the defendant abducted. Plaintiff also contended that the daughter of defendant Ms. Ritu Kumari left the house of the defendant at her own accord and plaintiff has no role whatsoever regarding the allegation of the defendant. On the complaint of the defendant, FIR bearing No.320/2009 P.S. Dwarka under section 365 IPC was registered on 21/7/2009. The police of PS Dwarka investigated the matter and cancelled the FIR NO.320/2009 on 03/03/2010 by ACP, Suit No.152/10 Smt. Tara Devi Vs. Smt. Geeta Devi 18 Dwarka. This information regarding cancellation of FIR No.320/2009 PS Dwarka has been informed to the plaintiff through RTI information vide Ex.PW1/2. It is admitted fact that the FIR No.320/2009 P.S. Dwarka has been cancelled and there is no dispute to this effect. 20 As per plaintiff, due to mentioning of her name in the above said FIR by the defendant, the police of P.S Dwarka also threatened her that she would be arrested any day and due to that reason husband of the plaintiff had to leave his job at Raddison Hotel, Indore, M.P., so as to safeguard the interest of the plaintiff. However, as per the RTI information provided to the plaintiff vide Ex.PW1/2, it is categorically stated that no arrest has been effected in the case and further the case FIR No.320/2009 P.S. Dwarka was cancelled on 3/3/2010 by ACP, Dwarka. Therefore, there is no substance in the allegation of plaintiff that the police of P.S. Dwarka started threatening the plaintiff for her arrest and Suit No.152/10 Smt. Tara Devi Vs. Smt. Geeta Devi 19 visited the house of the plaintiff on the day to day basis. Further, the plaintiff has not shown or proved any document in her evidence so as to prove that during the relevant period the husband of the defendant was working in Raddison Hotel, Indore, M.P and he had left the job to protect the interest of the plaintiff.
21 The plaintiff has relied the photocopy of letter dt. 15/5/2009 marked as Mark X3' whereby the husband of the plaintiff had submitted the resignation to the Director, Bestech India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgoan and also relied another photocopy of letter marked as Mark X4' dt. 13/4/2009 vide which husband of the plaintiff Narender Singh was transferred to Raddison Hotel, Indore, M.P from Bestech Chamber. Both these letters are prior to the lodging of FIR NO.320/2009 P.S Dwarka as both the letters i.e. resignation letter is of 15/5/2009 and transfer letter is dt. 30/4/2009 whereas the FIR NO.320/2009 dt. 21/7/2009. Therefore, it is Suit No.152/10 Smt. Tara Devi Vs. Smt. Geeta Devi 20 amply clear that there is no connection of resignation etc. of the husband of the plaintiff with the present case as the husband of the plaintiff has resigned on 15/5/2009 much prior to the lodging of FIR No.320/2009 dt. 21/7/2009. Further, the plaintiff also failed to show that in compliance to the transfer order dt. 13/4/2009 her husband joined at Raddison Hotel, Indore, M.P as vide letter marked as Mark X3' husband of the plaintiff sent the resignation to the Director, Bestech India Pvt. Ltd. , Gurgoan. Hence, there is no co relation between the resignation of the husband of the plaintiff and FIR No. 320/2009 lodged at the instance of the defendant. Hence, there is no substance of the allegation of the plaintiff that her husband had to left the job due to the allegations made by the defendant in FIR NO.320/2009.
22 The plaintiff further alleged that due to lodging of FIR No. 320/2009 by the defendant mentioning the name of the plaintiff as having Suit No.152/10 Smt. Tara Devi Vs. Smt. Geeta Devi 21 instrumental in missing/abduction of daughter of defendant namely Ms. Ritu Kumari, the husband of the plaintiff as well as the children of the plaintiff was suffered a lot. But in the complaint given by the defendant to the police on which FIR No.320/2009 was lodged, there is no mention of name of the husband or children of the plaintiff. Plaintiff in her cross examination also admitted that in FIR NO. 320/2009 the name of her husband and children were not mentioned. Further in cross examination, plaintiff stated that she had not filed any document regarding the education of her child and also not filed any document that her son has not appeared in the 11th class examination, hence, there is also no substance in the allegation of the plaintiff that the son of the plaintiff has to waste one precious year as he could not appear in the 11th class examination due to implication of the plaintiff in FIR NO. 320/2009. 23 Plaintiff has also alleged that due to allegation directly Suit No.152/10 Smt. Tara Devi Vs. Smt. Geeta Devi 22 mentioning of her name in the FIR NO. 320/2009 P.S Dwarka, by the defendant, her reputation has been maligned in the public at large as well as in the neighbourhood and in relation. However, the plaintiff has not examined any witness from the public or from neighbourhood or in her relation so as to prove that her reputation was maligned among them. In the absence of any evidence it can not be said and accepted the contention of plaintiff that she has been defamed and her reputation has been maligned in the public as well as neighbourhood and in relation. Hence, plaintiff also failed to prove the alleged defamation caused to her as claimed by the plaintiff by the acts of defendant due to mentioning of her name in the complaint on which basis the FIR NO. 320/2009 was registered in the P.S. Dwarka. The defendant has only shown and expressed her suspicion regarding plaintiff's involvement in abduction/missing of her daughter namely Ritu Kumari. This is just a Suit No.152/10 Smt. Tara Devi Vs. Smt. Geeta Devi 23 suspicion shown by the defendant in her complaint and defendant has not stated in the complaint that it was actually the plaintiff who was instrumental for abduction/missing of her daughter namely Ms. Ritu Kumari. Moreover, the defendant in her complaint as well as in her evidence stated that the plaintiff used to talk with her daughter Ms. Ritu Kumari and on that basis the defendant took the name of the plaintiff in her complaint.
24 In cross examination also, the defendant categorically stated that the plaintiff always talked about the incident of missing of her daughter Ms. Ritu Kumari. Defendant in her cross examination also denied that the reputation of the plaintiff was maligned in public, neighbourhood and in relation. Therefore, keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, it is apparently clear that the plaintiff has failed to show that she has been defamed due to the mentioning of her name in Suit No.152/10 Smt. Tara Devi Vs. Smt. Geeta Devi 24 the FIR NO.320/2009 P.S. Dwarka and also failed to show that her husband left the job and her children also suffered due to the involvement/mentioning of the plaintiff's name in the above said FIR. Plaintiff has failed to prove this issue. As such the plaintiff is not entitled for any damages as claimed in the suit. Hence, this issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of defendant. 25 ISSUE NO.4
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest, as claimed?...OPP As discussed above, issue No.3 has been decided against the plaintiff. While deciding issue No.3, it has been held that plaintiff is not entitled for any damages as claimed by the plaintiff, hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for any interest as he is not entitled for damages. Therefore, this issue is also decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
Suit No.152/10
Smt. Tara Devi Vs. Smt. Geeta Devi 25 26 Relief.
As discussed above, it has been held that the plaintiff is not entitled for decree of amount as claimed in the suit on account of damages, hence, there is no merit in the present suit. Suit of the plaintiff deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. 27 File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28/02/2014 (LAL SINGH) ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE03(SW) DWARKA COURTS : NEW DELHI Suit No.152/10 Smt. Tara Devi Vs. Smt. Geeta Devi 26 Suit No.152/10 Smt. Tara Devi Vs. Smt. Geeta Devi 28/02/2014 Present: None for plaintiff.
Defendant is present in person.
Vide separate judgment of even date, suit of the plaintiff is dismissed.
File be consigned to record room.
(LAL SINGH) ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE03(SW) DWARKA COURTS : NEW DELHI Suit No.152/10 Smt. Tara Devi Vs. Smt. Geeta Devi