Delhi District Court
Sh. Pankaj Aggarwal vs Dheeraj Sharma on 7 February, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV KUMAR MALHOTRA:
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE02: E COURT: SHAHDARA:
KARKARDOOMA COURT: DELHI.
CR No.59/19
Unique Case/CR No. 263/2019
1. Sh. Pankaj Aggarwal
S/o Late Dr. N.K. Aggarwal
R/o C41/Z2, Dilshad Garden
Delhi 110095
................Revisionist
Versus
1. Dheeraj Sharma
S/o R.P. Sharma
R/o C41/X1, Dilshad Garden
Delhi - 110095
2. Piyush Sharma
S/o R.P. Sharma
R/o C41/X1, Dilshad Garden
Delhi - 110095
............ Respondents
C.R. No.59/19 Pankaj Aggarwal vs. Dheeraj Sharma & Anr. Page 1/8
Date of Institution : 01.10.2019
Date of Arguments : 06.01.2020
Date of Order : 07.02.2020
ORDER
1. This revision petition is preferred u/s 397 & 398 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 11.09.2019 (herein after referred as impugned order) passed by Ms. Snigdha Sarvaria, Ld. MM01, Shahdara, Karkardooma Court, in Criminal Complaint Case No.2852/19 tilted as Pankaj Aggarwal Vs. Dheeraj Sharma & Anr., whereby Ld.Trial Court found no ground for proceeding to summon the accused persons and accordingly dismissed the complaint.
2. Arguments have been advanced by revisionist. I have also perused the trial court record.
3. Revisionist argued that respondents in their application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC has stated that complainant is a habitual litigant and is in habit of filing multiple frivolous litigations against the defendant, which is a defamatory statement. It has been submitted that Ld. Trial Court in para No.10 & 11 of the impugned order wrongly observed that the said application was signed by counsel of the respondents and not by the respondents, therefore, they C.R. No.59/19 Pankaj Aggarwal vs. Dheeraj Sharma & Anr. Page 2/8 have not been summoned. My attention is also drawn in respect of Judgments titled as Ram Jethmalani vs. Subramaniam Swami AIR 2006 Delhi 300, John Thomas vs. Dr. K. Jagadeesan SLP (Crl.) No.1875 of 2001 & Rohini Singh vs. State of Gujarat Petition No.8885 of 2017.
4. Revisionist has assailed the impugned order on the grounds; that in the impugned order Ld. Magistrate held that the application under VII Rule 11 CPC bearing the signature of Adv. Aditya Singh Deshwal as counsel not by the accused persons and the affidavit along with the above mentioned application clearly depict that the application was drafted under the instructions of accused no.1 & 2, and in the said application the defendants deliberately use the following words against the complainant without any proof. Words used such as that the complainant is "Habitual litigant, filed multiple frivolous litigation, frivolous suit, ILL intension for harassing, Abuse of the process, counter blast, come with unclean hand etc., which is clear attempt to tarnish and lower the reputation of complainant before Hon'ble court, colleagues, friends and society and also all these words were uttered in open court and in front of his residence many times to lower the reputation of the petitioner; that at the point of 11 of the impugned order the Learned Magistrate failed to appreciate that the day and date was already mentioned in the complaint at point no.7,8 & 11 of the C.R. No.59/19 Pankaj Aggarwal vs. Dheeraj Sharma & Anr. Page 3/8 complainant; that the Learned Magistrate failed to appreciate that the meaning of Words as "Habitual litigant, Filed multiple frivolous litigation, Frivolous suit, ILL intension for harassing, Abuse of the Process, counter blast, Come with unclean hands etc and many other words were only used to defame the complainant before the court; that the Learned Magistrate failed to appreciate that Absolute Privileged is not absolute in context of infinite in court proceeding; that the above words used by accused no.1 & 2 were false, contemptuous and without any proof and were used only to defame the complainant in eyes of Ld. Judges and colleagues & society with coresidents near complainant; that the Learned Magistrate has erred by concluding (in para 11 of judgment dated 11.09.2019) that complainant has not discloses the date and day whereas same was disclosed in point 11 of the complainant specifically; that the Learned Magistrate failed in ought to take consideration of the meaning of words used in the said application by accused no.1 & 2; that learned Magistrate had erroneously concluded that there is no ground for proceeding to summoning the accused person is made out; that learned Magistrate also failed to appreciate the judgment in ML Gohri vs. AK Aggarwal & Anrs., in which it was held that calling a person habitual litigant is defamation to such person; that learned Magistrate also failed to appreciate the judgment in Ram Jethmalani vs. Subramaniam swami in which it was held that there is no absolute immunity is C.R. No.59/19 Pankaj Aggarwal vs. Dheeraj Sharma & Anr. Page 4/8 form of infinite immunity in court proceedings in India; that the learned Magistrate rightly explain the meaning the role of the Defamation in point 4 & 6 of judgment dated 11.09.2019 and explanation attached to the section 499 & 500, but failed to apply in the above complainant case and also did not take consideration of the meaning of words used in application by accused no.1 & 2.
5. In brief, the facts relevant for disposal of present revision petition are that revisionist filed a complaint case u/s 499/500/34 IPC against the respondents stating that he is a practicing advocate and is resident of C41/Z2, C Block, Dilshad Garden and respondents are living at C41/X1,C Block, Dilshad Garden. It is alleged that defendants have encroached public land, which was demolished many times by the EDMC but defendants encroached the public land again and again therefore he filed a civil Suit No.652/2018 for mandatory injunction before Ld. Civil Judge, Shahdara and in those proceedings the respondents filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC supported with an affidavit and written submission wherein they allegedly used the word that complainant is 'habitual litigant, filed multiple frivolous litigation, frivolous suit, ILL intention for harassing, Abuse of process, counter blast & come with unclean hands etc., which is clear attempt to tarnish and lower the reputation of complainant before the Hon'ble Court and society and also all these words were C.R. No.59/19 Pankaj Aggarwal vs. Dheeraj Sharma & Anr. Page 5/8 uttered in open court and in front of his residence many times to lower the reputation of complainant.
6. To constitute defamation under section 499 IPC, there must be an imputation and such imputation must have been made with intention of harming or with a knowledge or having reason to believe that it will harm the reputation of the person about whom it is made. In essence, the offence of defamation is the harm caused to the reputation of a person. It would be sufficient to show that the accused intended or knew or had reason to believe that the imputation made by him would harm the reputation of the complainant, irrespective of whether the complainant actually suffered directly or indirectly from the imputation alleged.
Ingredients of section 499 IPC were discussed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Standard Chatered Bank vs. Vinay Kumar Sood, 2010 CrlLJ 1277 wherein it was observed as under: For an offence of defamation as defined under section 499 IPC, three essential ingredients are required to be fulfilled:
(i) Making or publishing any imputation concerning any person;
(ii) Such imputation must have been made by words either spoken or intended to be read or by signs or by visible representations. C.R. No.59/19 Pankaj Aggarwal vs. Dheeraj Sharma & Anr. Page 6/8
(iii) The said imputation must have been made with the intention to harm or with knowledge or having reason to believe that it will harm the reputation of the person concerned.
7. The main plea of revisionist is that the words used by respondents in their application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC in Suit No.652/2018 that he is in habit of filing multiple litigations is a clear attempt to lower the reputation of the revisionist before the concerned court as well as in the society. It is nowhere stated in the complaint as annexed with the petition that the alleged imputations were made with intention or knowledge that it will harm the reputation of the revisionist. Revisionist has not stated the name of any particular person in whose eyes his reputation has been lowered due to the statement mentioned in the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC that he is in habit of filing multiple, frivolous litigations. The pleadings were drafted by the counsel for the respondents as appearing from the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as annexed by the revisionist with the petition. In Ram Jethmalani vs. Subramaniam Swami (Supra) it was observed that a statement against a person that he has been receiving money from LTTE is ex facie defamatory. The authorities as relied upon by revisionist are not helpful in the facts and circumstances of the present case. I do not find any illegality or impropriety in C.R. No.59/19 Pankaj Aggarwal vs. Dheeraj Sharma & Anr. Page 7/8 the impugned order passed by Ld.Trial Court. Accordingly, revision petition stands dismissed. Trial Court record be sent back alongwith a copy of this order. Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signedby SANJEEV KUMAR MALHOTRA
SANJEEV Location:
KUMAR Karkardooma
MALHOTRA Courts, Delhi
Date:
2020.02.07
16:20:50
+0530
Announced in the open court (Sanjeev Kumar Malhotra)
on 07.02.2020 ASJ02/ECOURT
Shahdara/KKD/Delhi.
C.R. No.59/19 Pankaj Aggarwal vs. Dheeraj Sharma & Anr. Page 8/8