Delhi District Court
Rajiv Tyagi vs Ajay Negi on 8 February, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRASHANT SHARMA:
ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL JUDGECUMARCCUMCCJ:
NORTH EAST DISTRICT: KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
CS NO. 5370/15
Rajiv Tyagi
S/o Sh. Late Shri Balram Singh Tyagi
R/o H. No. 713, Gali No. 8/A
Village Mandoli, Near Bank Colony
Delhi.
.......Plaintiff
Versus
1.Ajay Negi, SubInspector/ Incharge P.P. Harsh Vihar, P.S. Nand Nagri Delhi.
2. Jalbir, ASI
3. Sohan Bir, Head Constable
4. Mahesh, Constable
5. Ramesh @ Ramesh Ganja Constable, Nand Nagri
6. Rambir Singh, ASI
7. Constable Balam Singh
8. Sub Inspector Suman All posted at Police Station, Nand Nagri, Delhi.
....... Defendants SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 2,00,000/ ON ACCOUNT OF DAMAGES BASED ON DEFAMATION AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION BY DEFENDANTS Date of institution of the petition : 07.03.2006.
Date on which judgment was reserved : 01.02.2017. Date of pronouncement of judgment : 08.02.2017. CS No. 5370/15 Rajiv Tyagi Vs. Ajay Negi Page no.1 of 33 Case Laws Relied :
1. Ramjethmalani Vs. Subhramaniam Swami, AIR 2006 DELHI 300
2. Ashok Kumar Vs. Radha Kishan viz. & Ors. 1983 (1) RCR (Crl.) 321
3. Chunni Lal Vs. Narsingh Dass, AIR 1918 ALLAHABAD 69, Full Bench
4. Bira Gareri Vs. Dulhin Somaria, AIR 1962, PATNA 229
5. Bashirulhuq Vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1953 SC 293
6. State Vs. Sri Gopal @ Mani Gopal" MANU/DE/1918/2009
7. Surat Singh Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, AIR 1989 DELHI 51
8. Mohd. Amin Vs. Joginder Kumar Banerjee, (1948) 51 CWN 723 (PC)
9. Deepak Rathaur and Anr. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Lal Dass, decided on 23.09.2016, in RSA No. 01/16 Cases Laws considered but not relied :
1. Subhramanian Swami Vs. Manmohan Singh & Ors.(2012) 3 SCC 64
2. Choudhary Praveen Sultana Vs. State of West Bengal, I (2009) SLT 664
3. Sakuntala Bai Vs. Venkata Krishna Reddy, AIR 1952 MADRAS 667 J U D G E M E N T
1. For getting relief, in a Court of law, party moving the Court has to prove his own case. Bald assertions by the said party, will not serve any purpose. Plaintiff, in this case, did not precisely follow the aforesaid legal tenet and his case, failed accordingly.
2. Present suit for recovery of damages on account of defamation and malicious prosecution was filed by plaintiff namely Rajiv Tyagi against defendants namely Ajay Negi, Jalbir, Sohan Bir, Mahesh, Ramesh @ Ramesh Ganja, Rambir Singh, Constable Balam Singh and SubInspector Suman, alleging the following facts : "Plaintiff claimed himself to be a law abiding citizen of India living peacefully with his family and running business in the name and style of Tyagi Tour & Travels alongwith PCO and Dhaba and his sole source of earning was from the said business. He claimed that he was never CS No. 5370/15 Rajiv Tyagi Vs. Ajay Negi Page no.2 of 33 involved in any criminal or antisocial activities.
Defendants at the relevant time who were posted at the Police Station, Nand Nagri, used to demand police tax and hafta from him. Their said demands were refuted by plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said refusal, defendants threatened plaintiff that they will implicate plaintiff in false criminal cases, if he did not succumb to their demands. Defendants had advanced such threats on various occasions. In furtherance of their said threats, defendant no. 1, 7, 6 & 8 arrested plaintiff on 15.09.2005 and challened him U/Sec. 107/151 Cr.PC before Special Executive Magistrate, concerned. Plaintiff claimed that contents of said kalandara itself reflected that false story was concocted by SI Ram Singh. In the said proceedings, plaintiff was released on bail on 16.09.2005 after remaining in police custody for a single day. The message with respect to arrest of plaintiff was conveyed amongst local people by defendants. Later on, in the said proceedings, Special Executive Magistrate discharged plaintiff on 10.02.2006. Due to terror of defendants, plaintiff and his family members suffered hardship, physically and mentally. Subsequently, plaintiff again made effort to continue with his business but defendants started threatened him to fulfill their demands of paying hafta. Plaintiff again refuted the same. In order to harass plaintiff, defendants used to consume meals in the hotel of plaintiff without paying bill when it was demanded by plaintiff. In January, 2006, plaintiff insisted for payment of bills from defendants and that demand annoyed CS No. 5370/15 Rajiv Tyagi Vs. Ajay Negi Page no.3 of 33 defendants who threatened plaintiff that they will teach him lesson. They implemented their said threats on 18.01.2006 by conniving with each other as defendant no. 2 prepared a complaint against plaintiff, which was duly forwarded by SHO, Police Station, Nand Nagri. Based on said complaint, plaintiff was kept in lockup. Said complaint was based on a person namely Mool Chand who stated before Special Executive Magistrate that he has never lodged any such complaint against plaintiff and based on that version, plaintiff was released on bail. Plaintiff made allegation against defendant that they had asserted plaintiff as a result of which, he had sustained injury on his chest and eyes besides other parts of the body. After coming out of the police custody, he obtained medical treatment by a private Doctor but his pain never got cured. Plaintiff got the XRay of his chest on the advise of Doctor which shows that he had cervical libs. Said acts of defendants disturbed plaintiff and his family members, so much so, his family members started behaving abnormally and could not sleep at night. Plaintiff made a complaint to DCP, Seelampur, Delhi, about ill treatment being done by defendants but despite receiving the said complaint, concerned DCP did not act. Finally, for redressal of his grievances, plaintiff moved this Court, in which, he prayed that a decree of Rs. 2,00,000/ be passed in his favour and against defendants on account of defamation of plaintiff and on account of damages being sustained by plaintiff on which necessary interest pendentelite and future with costs of suit, be paid to him."
CS No. 5370/15 Rajiv Tyagi Vs. Ajay Negi Page no.4 of 33
3. Defendant no. 1 to 7 filed their Written Statement in common. They took certain preliminary objections viz., that plaintiff had not disclosed material facts to the Court, that no cause of action arose in favour of plaintiff and against defendant, that suit was barred on account of nonissuance of notice U/Sec. 80 CPC against defendants, that suit was barred on account of nonissuance of notice U/Sec. 138 and 140 of Delhi Police Act, that complaint of plaintiff dated 23.01.2006 did not mention the name of defendants making his plaint meritless, that plaintiff had not obtained permission U/Sec. 197 Cr.PC before filing the suit and that suit of plaintiff is nothing but abuse of process of law. On merits, they refuted the version of plaintiff by referring to the preliminary objections as mentioned above which are not repeated here for the sake of brevity. They specifically denied that they had ever demanded half from plaintiff or had threatened plaintiff with falsely implicating him in criminal case or for stopping his business. They explained that the kalandara/ challan U/Sec. 107/151 Cr.PC was legally prepared after receiving DD No. 39A on 15.09.2005, when ASI Rambir Singh had found plaintiff in drinking condition and giving threatening to passerby and also giving threatening to SI Suman, SI Ajay Singh Negi, Ct. Balam. At that time, plaintiff was persuaded to maintain compromise but plaintiff did not accede to the said request of defendants and hence, he was arrested on the directions of Additional SHO concerned. They asserted that they had performed their duties as per law and that they had never received any summons/ notice from concerned Special Executive Magistrate and therefore, have not appeared in his office to join proceedings U/Sec. 107/151 Cr.PC. They pointed out that they had not beaten plaintiff as MLC of plaintiff did not reflect any injury to his body. As per them, disturbance in the life of plaintiff and his family members was based on the illegal acts and misbehavour of plaintiff's himself. They refuted that they had maliciously prosecuted and had ever detained plaintiff, illegally in lockup. They finally prayed for dismissal of the suit.
CS No. 5370/15 Rajiv Tyagi Vs. Ajay Negi Page no.5 of 33
4. Defendant no. 8 in his Written Statement also took the preliminary objections, which were more or less akin to those, raised by defendant no. 1 to 7 in their Written Statement, which are not repeated here for the sake of brevity. On merits, he also refuted the version of plaintiff and reasserted his claim as mentioned in the preliminary objections. He also stated that plaintiff is a quarrelsome person who indulged in antisocial activities based on which, he was booked by the police officials of Police Station, Nand Nagri. So far as, threats and illegal demands were concerned, he answered that since, he was newly posted at Police Station, Nand Nagri, so, he had no knowledge about the said threats and illegal demand. He denied that he had ever colluded with any of the police officials for maliciously implicated the plaintiff in the criminal proceedings. He refuted that he was ever summoned by concerned Special Executive Magistrate. He also stated that hotel of the plaintiff was situated in the area of police post of Harsh Vihar and there was no occasion to have visit said hotel as he was posted at Police Station, Nand Nagri. He denied his presence at the alleged incident on 15.09.2005 and that he had any malafide against plaintiff. He also prayed for dismissal of the suit.
5. Plaintiff filed replication to the aforesaid Written Statements of defendants, in which, he refuted the version of defendants and reiterated the facts as mentioned in the plaint, which are not repeated here for the sake of brevity.
6. After completion of pleadings of the parties, following issues were settled by this Court.
1. Whether suit is barred u/s 80 of Code of Civil Procedure? OPD
2. Whether suit is barred u/s 138 and 140 of Delhi Police Act? OPD
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for a decree in the sum of Rs. 2 lakhs, on account of defamation and malicious prosecution as claimed? OPP
4. Relief.
CS No. 5370/15 Rajiv Tyagi Vs. Ajay Negi Page no.6 of 33
7. During course of proceedings, defendant no. 2 (ASI Jalbir) expired, but plaintiff did not file application for substituting LRs of the said defendant, which indicated that as per plaintiff, his right to sue did not survive against LRs of defendant no. 2. Case against defendant no. 2 abated on his death.
8. Subsequently, matter was fixed for plaintiff's evidence.
9. Plaintiff examined as many as five witnesses to prove his case. He examined himself as PW1 and tendered his affidavit Ex.PW1/A in which, he reiterated the facts as mentioned in the plaint, which are not repeated here for the sake of brevity.
10. Plaintiff examined Mool Chand as PW2 who tendered his affidavit Ex.P2. In his examinationinchief, he deposed that he used to run a shop of Panwari near the shop of plaintiff and at 10 pm, some persons had started quarreling in front of his shop. Subsequently, he went to the plaintiff and requested him to call the police at 100 number. Plaintiff called police at 100 number but police came late when the said persons had left the spot. Subsequently, defendants forcibly entered into the shop of plaintiff and started beating him. They also abused PW2 and was forcibly taken away from the spot. He deposed that in his presence, defendants had beaten plaintiff. In fact, he was also detained by defendants upto 2 or 3 am, on 18.01.2006. He further deposed that defendants had kept the key of his bike with them and did not allow him to inform family members about his whereabouts. He further deposed that defendants had obtained his signatures on some blank papers and later on, he was allowed to go back to his home. He also deposed that on 18.01.2006, he appeared before Special Executive Magistrate and stated that he had never made any complaint against plaintiff. Thus, he confirmed the case of plaintiff.
CS No. 5370/15 Rajiv Tyagi Vs. Ajay Negi Page no.7 of 33
11. Plaintiff examined Bishambhar Dayal as PW3 who tendered his affidavit Ex.PW2/1, in which, he deposed that on 17.01.2006, he was present at the shop of plaintiff when a person had come and had requested plaintiff to ring at 100 number as some persons are quarreling in front of his shop. He deposed that he also called police from his mobile phone but police did not come there soon. He deposed that after sometime those quarreling persons left the spot and then, police came there. He deposed that those police officials abusing plaintiff entered the shop of plaintiff and gave beatings to him. Subsequently, plaintiff was taken away and he also left the spot.
12. Plaintiff examined Smt. Susheela as PW4 who tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW4/A, in which, she deposed that she was acquainted with plaintiff for the last many years as he was her tenant. She deposed that plaintiff is maintaining good conduct and defendants have forcibly entered into the shop of plaintiff, lifted him and have given beatings to him. She also deposed that plaintiff was released from custody by 18.01.2006 and that defendants had illegally detained the plaintiff, in false case.
13. Plaintiff lastly examined, Constable Anil (No. 1506, NorthEast), who was a summoned witness and has brought original kalandara regarding DD No. 43 Dated 18.01.2006. He compared the photocopies with the originals of said kalandara which were marked as Ex.PW5/A (colly). He also deposed that on the basis of record, DD No. 39A Dated 15.09.2005 was lodged at Police Station, Nand Nagri against plaintiff but original or the same was not traceable. He placed on record the copy of said kalandara. After examining the said witness, plaintiff's evidence was closed and matter was fixed for defendant's evidence.
CS No. 5370/15 Rajiv Tyagi Vs. Ajay Negi Page no.8 of 33
14. In their defence, defendants no. 3, 5, 7 & 8 examined themselves by tendering in evidence their affidavits viz. Ex.D5, Ex.D4, Ex.DW2/A and Ex.DW1/A, respectively, reiterating the contents of their Written Statement as mentioned above, not repeated here for the sake of brevity. They relied upon complaint of plaintiff dated 23.01.2006 MarkA, kalandara dated 18.01.2006 MarkB and MarkC respectively alongwith MLC of plaintiff MarkD. They also relied upon the proceeding before Special Executive Magistrate, already relied by plaintiff in his evidence. In nutshell, they justified that all the kalandaras in question with other legal documents were duly prepared, without any malice against plaintiff. They justified the said legal proceedings based on wrongful act of plaintiff as mentioned in the kalandaras. They were crossexamined by plaintiff with respect to their illegal conducts towards plaintiff which they refuted. After examining themselves, defendants closed their evidence and matter was fixed for final arguments.
15. After hearing final arguments, matter was fixed for pronouncement of judgement.
16. In my subsequent paragraphs, I will be deciding the issues in hand.
Issue No.1: Whether suit is barred u/s 80 of Code of Civil Procedure? OPD
17. Defendants in their written statement, had raised the issue that plaintiff had not served upon them any notice u/s 80 CPC. By raising said issue, defendants discharged their burden and onus proving the fact that defendants were duly served with notice u/s 80 CPC, rested on plaintiff. As per Section 80 CPC, no suit shall be filed against a public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in the official capacity until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been delivered to him, stating the cause of action, name, description and place of residence of plaintiff CS No. 5370/15 Rajiv Tyagi Vs. Ajay Negi Page no.9 of 33 and the relief which he claims and the plaint shall contain the statement that such a notice had been so delivered or left. The said provision, therefore, mandates that before any suit against the public officer, is filed, two months notice prior to constituting of said suit has to be given to the said public officer and/or his office, mentioning the details of cause of action sought by the aggrieved party. In this case, plaintiff admittedly, has not served any such notice upon defendants. This suit, is therefore, barred by u/s 80 CPC. Aforesaid issue is decided in favour of defendants.
Issue No.2: Whether suit is barred u/s 138 and 140 of Delhi Police Act? OPD
18. Again by raising the issue of suit being barred under aforesaid provision of Delhi Police Act in their written statement, defendants discharged their onus. Burden of proving the maintainability of this suit in the wake of mandate of Section 138 and 140 of Delhi Police Act, rested on plaintiff. Admittedly, he did not give any notice to the defendants who are public servants u/s 138 & 140 Delhi Police Act. Section 140(1) of Delhi Police Act mandates that in any case of alleged offence offence by a police officer or other person, or of a wrong alleged to have been done by such police officer or other person, by any act done under colour of duty or authority or in excess of an such duty or authority, or wherein it shall appear to the court that the offence or wrong if committed or done was of the character aforesaid, the prosecution or suit shall not be entertained and if entertained shall be dismissed if it is instituted, more than three months after the date of the act complained of: Provided that any such prosecution against a Police Officer or other person may be entertained by the court, if instituted with the previous sanction of the Administrator, within one year from the date of the offence.
CS No. 5370/15 Rajiv Tyagi Vs. Ajay Negi Page no.10 of 33
19. Since plaintiff has not given any notice u/s 140(2) of Delhi Police Act, to defendants, so this suit is barred under the said provision. This issue is decided in favour of defendants.
Issue No.3.: Whether plaintiff is entitled for a decree in the sum of Rs. 2 lakhs, on account of defamation and malicious prosecution as claimed? OPP And Issue No. 4 : Relief.
20. Both the aforesaid issues, were based on the reliefs sought by the plaintiff and therefore were interconnected. They are decided on the basis of common appreciation of evidence and recorded placed on this case file in my subsequent paragraphs.
21. As per plaintiff, wrongful acts of defendants, had defamed him and he was subjected to malicious prosecution. The wrongful acts of defendants, as claimed by plaintiff, included the acts of taking meals in the Dhaba of plaintiff without paying bills, charging 'Hafta' from plaintiff and falsely implicating plaintiff in criminal cases by virtue of Kalandara recorded vide DD no.43 dated 18.01.2006 and Kalandara recorded vide DD no.39A dated 15.09.2005. Besides aforesaid acts, plaintiff claimed that he was beaten by defendants, was illegally detained in police custody and was threatened by defendants, with dire consequences, in case, he files complaint against them. All the above aspects, highlighted by plaintiff, are appreciated by me, in subsequent paragraphs, on the touchstone of evidence, brought on record, by the parties.
22. At the very outset, it should be made clear that onus of proving the aforesaid allegations, rested on plaintiff. It was plaintiff, who should have proved the aforesaid allegations, by leading evidence.
CS No. 5370/15 Rajiv Tyagi Vs. Ajay Negi Page no.11 of 33
23. Wrongful acts of defendants, started, as per plaintiff, when they started visiting the business openings of plaintiff, which included tours and travel business being run under the name and style of M/s Tyagi Tours & Travels and the business of PCO and Dhaba. As per plaintiff, defendants used to visit the said business openings for demanding police tax and Hafta from plaintiff. On his refusal, defendants had threatened him with dire consequences and also with the threat of implicating him in false criminal cases. In his plaint, plaintiff did not specify the exact date/dates and the exact nature of demand/demands, made by the specific defendants. Apart from that, plaintiff did not specify as to which defendant had threatened what, in his plaint. He carried the same pleadings in his evidence, when he tendered his affidavit Ex.PW1/A, where he reiterated the same. Absence of specific details of aforesaid aspects made his allegations vague in nature, which he never covered up in his evidence. Besides that, plaintiff never explained as to why he did not file any complaint to the erring defendants for their alleged illegal demands and threats, immediately or after expiry of reasonable time, with concerned department/forum. As a reasonable prudent person he should not have kept mum, rather should have set legal machinery into motion, when he received the said illegal demands and threats from defendants. He did not act promptly and/or within a reasonable time for redressal of his grievances, which made his conduct doubtful and unbelievable. It is trite to mention here that a person moving the Court, must come with clean hands, divulging details of the action and inaction with reasons. Plaintiff in this case, did not explain the improbable conduct of not acting promptly and reasonably, while facing the alleged illegal threats and demands of defendants. So, his said improbable conduct, created doubt over his veracity. That was the first reason, based on which this Court do not believe his version.
CS No. 5370/15 Rajiv Tyagi Vs. Ajay Negi Page no.12 of 33
24. This brings me to the issue of defamation, as raised by plaintiff. As per plaintiff, he was defamed by the illegal acts and misbehaviour of defendants. Before appreciating the said issue, I must mention here the law governing defamation in Civil Law. As on date, there is no statutory law of civil defamation, in our country, although, criminal aspect of it, is covered U/Sec. 499/500 Indian Penal Code (In Short 'IPC'). Civil defamation is divided into two types viz. Libel and Slander. If the defamatory meaning is conveyed in a permanent form, then, the action is in libel. If it is, in a temporary form, then, slander. In India, there is no such distinction and both libel and slander are criminal offences U/Sec. 499 IPC. Coming back to the definition of a defamation, Winfield defines a defamatory statement as under : "Defamation is the publication of a statement which tends to lower person in the estimation of right thinking members of society, generally or which, tends to make them shun or avoid that person".
25. As per Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as Ramjethmalani Vs. Subhramaniam Swami, AIR 2006 DELHI 300, it was observed : "Defamation is a public communication which tends to injure the reputation of another. What statements are defamatory and the span of defences varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but there is common agreement in all jurisdiction that statements that are unflattering, annoying, irksome, embarrassing or hurt one's feelings are not actionable. Common element in all jurisdictions is to injure the reputation."
CS No. 5370/15 Rajiv Tyagi Vs. Ajay Negi Page no.13 of 33
26. So far as civil liability for defamation is concerned, it was observed by Hon'ble High Court in case titled as Ashok Kumar Vs. Radha Kishan viz. & Ors. 1983 (1) RCR (Crl.) 321.
"........... The civil liability for defamation to pay damages is not governed by any statue law but is determined with reference to the principles of justice, equity and good consciouence, which have been imported into this country from the English law. In civil actions for damages, there is what has been called "judicial privilege". Neither party, witness, counsel or judge can be sued civilly for words spoken or written in the course of any proceeding before any Court or Tribunal recognised by law and thus, though the words written or spoken were written or spoken maliciously, without any justification or excuse and from personal illwill and anger against the person defamed. This absolute privilege has been conceded on the grounds of public policy to ensure freedom of speech where it is essential that freedom of speech should exists. The freedom of communication is of such paramount importance that civil suits for defamation cannot be entertained at all."
27. In case titled as Chunni Lal Vs. Narsingh Dass, AIR 1918 ALLAHABAD 69, Full Bench, it was held :
"Statements, if defamatory, contained in a petition addressed to a Magistrate, might not be absolutely privileged for a criminal Court but the privilege was absolute in a Court of civil jurisdiction"
CS No. 5370/15 Rajiv Tyagi Vs. Ajay Negi Page no.14 of 33
28. Another judgement which is relevant is, Bira Gareri Vs. Dulhin Somaria, AIR 1962, PATNA 229, wherein, it was observed that : "It may well be that if the information is found to be false and to have been actuated by malice, the informant is criminally liable for defamation U/Sec. 499 IPC of even civilly liable under certain circumstances to pay damages for malicious prosecution, but he must be held to enjoy the absolute privilege and protected from civil liability for defamation for such a statement."
29. In case titled as Bashirulhuq Vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1953 SC 293, it was observed that : "With the authoritative pronouncement by Hon'ble Supreme Court, the law may be said to be settled and indisputable. A party to a judicial proceeding enjoys only qualified privilege because that is what is statutorily enumerated in the nine exceptions to Sec. 499 IPC. No absolute privilege can be claimed. That is available in the common law."
30. In the case of Ramjethmalani (supra), it was observed : "Even the issue of absolute privilege has remained a subject matter of considerable debate. Is absolute privilege absolute in the sense of being infinite. As late as 1998, in the decision reported as 1998 (1) ALL ER 625 WAPLE VS.
Surrey Country Counsel, it was held that the absolute privilege, which applies to statements made in the course of judicial or quasi judicial proceedings and in the documents made in such proceedings, would only be CS No. 5370/15 Rajiv Tyagi Vs. Ajay Negi Page no.15 of 33 entitled where it was strictly necessary to do so in order to protect those who were to participate in the proceedings from being sued themselves."
31. Aforesaid decision brings out that absolute privileges not absolute in the context of being infinite. Even when, the occasion is privileged, one gets no licence to utter irrelevant and scandalous things unrelated to the proceedings. If what is stated is necessary or relevant to the proceedings, immunity would be absolute.
32. In another case titled as "State Vs. Sri Gopal @ Mani Gopal"
MANU/DE/1918/2009 Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court observed that : "Absolute privilege has been recognised as a defence to protect witnesses to speak without fear while deposing in a Court at the cost of sacrificing a complete value i.e. the dignity of an individual. Even defamatory statement made by witnesses in Court, subject to the statement being relevant to the enquiry before the Court have been held to be nonactionable, even if the maker of the statement cannot make good the same."
33. Aforesaid catena of judgements, passed by higher echelon of judiciary, if studied, would reveal that they are based on the common law principle, which is that civil suit for damages on account of defamation in judicial proceedings, as such, is not maintainable but said bar is not absolute. It has to be seen, on case to case basis, as to what is the context in which, alleged defamatory statements were used in the judicial proceedings, so as to, carve out an exception to the aforesaid common law principle. Thus, it all boils down to the aspect as to in what context a party had made statement during judicial proceedings and what were the basis of making those statements.
CS No. 5370/15 Rajiv Tyagi Vs. Ajay Negi Page no.16 of 33
34. Coming back to facts of the present case, I find that so far as oral threats and defamatory statements, allegedly made by defendants were concerned, plaintiff did not specify them. He did not specify, as to which, defendant had spoken what sort of defamatory statement, against him, which had lowered his reputation in the eyes of persons bearing good moral character. So, I conclude that as such, defendants had not spoken any defamatory statement against plaintiff, for which they are liable to pay any damages to plaintiff.
35. So far as, the written aspect of alleged defamatory statements are concerned, case of plaintiff revolved around the two kalandaras dated 15.09.2005 and 18.01.2006. In his evidence, plaintiff testified that record of kalandara dated 18.01.2006 referred by him Ex.PW5/A, was a bundle of false and defamatory facts, written by defendants, in collusion with each other. Record of said kalandara dated 18.01.2006, referred as Ex.PW5/A (Colly), revealed that it consisted of kalandara prepared by defendant no. 2 (Referred as MarkB also) being witnessed by defendant no. 5, defendant no. 1 and Mool Chand, which was duly forwarded by SHO, PS, Nand Nagri, MLC of plaintiff (Referred as MarkD), final order of discharge of plaintiff dated 31.01.2006, Notice U/Sec. 107/111 Cr.PC., DD No. 43 Dated 18.01.2006, DD No. 36 Dated 17.01.2006, statement of Mool Chand recorded on 17.01.2006, personal search memo of plaintiff dated 18.01.2006, arrest memo of plaintiff dated 18.01.2006, bail bond furnished by plaintiff, copy of ID Card of Bishambhar Dayal Gupta who had stood as surety for plaintiff, RC of vehicle bearing Registration No. DL 3C A 9916 belonging to Bishambhar Dayal Gupta and application for acceptance of compromise signed by plaintiff and Mool Chand.
CS No. 5370/15 Rajiv Tyagi Vs. Ajay Negi Page no.17 of 33
36. A perusal of aforesaid documents, reveal that those documents were prepared by defendant no. 2, in his official capacity and during ordinary course of his official duty. Plaintiff had not disputed the manner in which, those documents were prepared and therefore, as per Section 114, 'illustration e' Indian Evidence Act, I presume that said documents were prepared in ordinary course of business.
37. This brings me to the contents of those documents. As per plaintiff, defendant no. 2 had falsely prepared the said kalandara as the incident regarding misbehaviour of plaintiff being intoxicated with liquor, as no such incident had ever taken place. This is so deposed by the plaintiff in his evidence. The said version of plaintiff get falsified from his MLC No. 184/06 which is part of Ex.PW5/A which shows that the concerned Doctor who had examined plaintiff, had observed that "smell of alcohol present", which meant that there is every possibility that plaintiff was drunk on the day of his arrest. That fact coupled with the fact that plaintiff had moved an application for acceptance of compromise, which was duly signed by him and Mool Chand, only probablized the situation that altercation had taken place between plaintiff and Mool Chand, as complained by Mool Chand in his statement, recorded by defendant no. 2 on 17.01.2006. Had there been no such incident, plaintiff would not have compromised the matter with Mool Chand. The only probability which can be visualized, by me, in the given facts and circumstances, is that, plaintiff had quarreled with Mool Chand under the effect of liquor which led to his arrest and proceedings U/Sec. 107/151 Cr.PC.
38. So far as, Mool Chand is concerned, he had examined himself as PW2 and in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.P2, he had deposed in 'para 1, 2 & 3' of his affidavit that some people had started quarreling in front of his shop at about 10 pm and consequently, he went to plaintiff for making call at 100 CS No. 5370/15 Rajiv Tyagi Vs. Ajay Negi Page no.18 of 33 number but police came late after said persons quarreling, had left the site. After reaching there, defendants forcibly entered in the shop of plaintiff and started giving him beatings. They also abused him and beaten him. They took him with them in police jeep and detained him in police post till 02/03 am on 18.01.2006. Further, in his presence, defendants had given beatings to plaintiff and had not allowed him to call his family members till his release. He also deposed that he had never made any complaint to defendant no. 2 and that plaintiff was falsely implicated. In his crossexamination, he testified that his signatures were taken by police on some blank papers on 17.01.2006, that he never lodged any complaint against the concerned police officials who had beaten him and that he had never made any complaint to the police. After considering the said version of this witness, obvious question, which arose in my mind is, what prevented this witness from filing complaint against the wrong doers defendants ? Coupled with the same, this witness does not explain as to why, he signed blank papers on 17.01.2006 ? Why he did not file case, thereby seeking explanation from defendants, for explaining the reason, as to why they had taken his signatures on blank papers ? Who were the said persons, who were quarreling in front of his shop ? Why defendants without rhyme or reason started beating him and plaintiff at their shops on the intervening night of 17.01.2006 & 18.01.2006 ? Why he did not file any suit for damages against defendants ? What was the possible motive of defendants, in beating plaintiff ? Why was he taken to the police station without any reason by defendants ? All those questions and likewise aspects, were not explained by this witness. This witness had his shop in close vicinity to the shop of plaintiff and therefore, his close acquaintance with plaintiff, so much so, that he had deposed in favour of plaintiff, being partisan witness, cannot be ruled out. His testimony therefore, became a tutored testimony. The fact that he had approached plaintiff for calling police on the day of incident in question, only indicated that he was acquainted with plaintiff prior to incident in question on 18.01.2006, which CS No. 5370/15 Rajiv Tyagi Vs. Ajay Negi Page no.19 of 33 only probablized the possibility of him being an interested witness. That possibility became all the more probable in the light of absence of answers to the aforesaid questions. Thus, his testimony is discarded by me.
39. Plaintiff had examined PW3 Bishambhar Dayal Gupta, who had testified in the same line as PW2 Mool Chand had deposed in his examination inchief. This witness tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.PW2/1, in which, he deposed so. This witness in his crossexamination, testified that he was acquainted with plaintiff prior to incident dated 17.01.2006, which probablized the situation that he was an interested witness, at the beck and call of plaintiff. After the incident of plaintiff being beaten by defendants, this witness did not make any complaint about the defendants, for reasons best known to him. He testified that he had gone to police station, later on, but did not specify the reason as to why he had gone there and what did he do there ? Surprisingly, he deposed in his crossexamination that there was enmity between plaintiff and defendants, which dismantled the case of plaintiff, in totality, as plaintiff case rested on the fact that defendants had made illegal demands to him, which he refuted and which created animosity between them. So, as such, this witness did not justify his own conduct by not complaining against defendants, on one hand and thrashed the case of plaintiff by deposing absence of enmity of plaintiff with defendants. I discarded his testimony in totality as it is not trustworthy.
40. Plaintiff had examined wife of PW2 Mool Chand namely Smt. Sushila as PW4 who tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW4/A, in which she deposed that she had family relations with plaintiff and his family and that defendants had entered into the shop of plaintiff, lifted him and had beaten him. She also deposed that plaintiff was released from the custody of defendants on 18.01.2006 and that plaintiff was falsely involved in criminal cases by defendants. This witness again did not explain, as to why, she did not make any complaint against defendants from their alleged wrongful acts against CS No. 5370/15 Rajiv Tyagi Vs. Ajay Negi Page no.20 of 33 plaintiff, by herself. She testified that she was getting rent from plaintiff @ Rs. 12000/ per month and that plaintiff was related to her biradari. Those facts only probablized the fact that she was an interested witness, who had come to depose in favour of plaintiff, at his instance, as she was getting benefit, financially from plaintiff, in the shape of rent. This witness had testified in her crossexamination that she was present on the roof of the property and had seen police officials beating plaintiff. She did not explain, as to what was she doing there in night time at about 9 pm. She did not explain as to why she did not make hue and cry, when plaintiff was being beaten allegedly by defendants. She testified that no public person was present when plaintiff was being beaten by police officials and if that is so, then, testimony of PW2 Mool Chand and PW3 Bishambhar Dayal Gupta became doubtful as those public persons were very much present on the day of incident, in the night of 17.01.2006. Thus, she did not depose in coherent manner with the testimonies of PW2 and PW3 to that extent. This witness did not explain as to why she did not stop or tried to stop defendants, beating plaintiff. She did not explain, as to why she remained a mere spectator, noting down plaintiff being beaten by defendants without any reason. Further, I failed to understand, as to how she could have deposed that plaintiff was not under the influence of liquor when she was standing on her roof, which made her presence at a distance thus improbablizing the situation that she could have smelt the breath of plaintiff. She did not act like a reasonable prudent person who being a close acquaintance with plaintiff, would have acted in the situation in which, she was in, in the night of 17.01.2006. The only fact which, she made this Court, to believe was that she had witnessed the incident dated 17.01.2006 and that fact even if, believed to be true did not falsify the document Ex.PW5/A, by itself as she had no clue about why plaintiff was being arrested and detained in police custody. Her own conduct, as reflected in her testimony improbablized the situation that she had witnessed the incident, which had occurred in the night of 17.01.2006.
CS No. 5370/15 Rajiv Tyagi Vs. Ajay Negi Page no.21 of 33
41. The net result of aforesaid appreciation is that, kalandara dated 18.01.2006, Ex.PW5/A (Colly) was placed before Special Executive Magistrate, became part of the said proceedings before Special Executive Magistrate, who had adjudicatory powers to decide said kalandara, making said proceedings, akin to that of judicial proceedings. If that is so, then, based on aforesaid appreciation, record prepared by defendant no. 2, was not based on some improbable facts. Those facts were very much probable, making them trustworthy and reliable. Recording of those facts, did not constitute defamatory statement and as such, defendants, in particular defendant no. 2, were immune from defamatory proceedings. They were privileged to not being prosecuted for the said record. Plaintiff is therefore, not entitled for any damages, on account of said record. Mere fact that plaintiff was discharged, by itself did not mean that defendant no. 2 had prepared the kalandara dated 18.01.2006 falsely, in order to lower the reputation of plaintiff in the eyes of people, having good moral character.
42. So far as, kalandara recorded vide DD No. 39A Dated 15.09.2005, was concerned, PW5 Ct. Anil had testified that original of said kalandara is not traceable despite best efforts. In such circumstances, defendants cannot be made liable for the contents of said kalandara, original of which, is not brought on record. Even otherwise, case of plaintiff rested heavily on the fact that proceedings of kalandara recorded vide DD No. 43 Dated 18.01.2006, ended with his discharge from the proceedings before Special Executive Magistrate. Plaintiff had examined witnesses pertaining to said kalandara dated 18.01.2006 only. He did not examined any witness and did not explain as to why contents of kalandara recorded on 15.09.2005, were false and defamatory. Thus, defendants, cannot be made liable for the contents of kalandara recorded on 15.09.2005.
CS No. 5370/15 Rajiv Tyagi Vs. Ajay Negi Page no.22 of 33
43. Based on aforesaid appreciation, as such, defendants were immune from civil liability for the purpose of plaintiff being allegedly defamed on account of aforesaid two kalandaras in question. Defendants are therefore, not liable to pay any damages on account of any defamation, made against plaintiff.
44. Having decided the issue of defamation, allegedly caused by defendants, I am now moving on towards the issue of malicious prosecution, which was preciously the bone of contention between the parties. Before addressing the said issue in the background of facts and circumstances of this case, it will be worthwhile to understand the concept of malicious prosecution, which is being done, in subsequent paragraphs.
45. Malicious prosecution is the malicious institution of unsuccessful criminal or bankruptcy or liquidation proceedings against another without reasonable or probable cause. This tort balances competing principles namely freedom that every person should have in brining criminals to justice and the need for restraining false acquisitions against innocent persons. Malicious prosecution is an abuse of process of the Court by wrongfully setting the law in motion in a criminal charge. The foundation lies in the triangular abuse of the Court process of the Court by wrongfully setting the law in motion and it is designed to encourage the perversion of the machinery of justice for a proper cause. The tort of malicious prosecution provides redress for those who are prosecuted without cause and malice. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case, titled as, Surat Singh Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, AIR 1989 DELHI 51, had underlined the requirements, which plaintiff has to prove, while getting relief on account of his malicious prosecution, as mentioned below.....
a. That he was prosecuted by defendants.
b. That the proceeding complained was terminated in favour of the
present plaintiff.
CS No. 5370/15 Rajiv Tyagi Vs. Ajay Negi Page no.23 of 33
c. That the prosecution was instituted against without any just or
reasonable cause.
d. That the prosecution was instituted with a malicious intention, that
is, not with the mere intention of getting the law into effect, but with an intention, which was wrongful in fact.
e. That he suffered damage to his reputation or to the safety of person or to security of his property.
46. The proper test was indicated by the Privy Counsel in the case titled as Mohd. Amin Vs. Joginder Kumar Banerjee, (1948) 51 CWN 723 (PC), wherein, it was observed that : "The test is not whether the criminal proceedings have reached a stage at which, they may be described as a prosecution, the test is whether such proceedings have reached a stage at which damage to the plaintiff results. A mere presentation of the complaint to a Magistrate, who dismiss it on the ground that it discloses no offence, may not be sufficient ground for presuming that damage was a necessary consequence. It will be for the plaintiff to prove that damage actually resulted".
47. In Gaya Prasad Vs. Bhagat Singh, ILR (1908) 30 ALL 525 (PC), the Privy Counsel pointed out that the conduct of the complainant before and after the complaint has to be seen whether he was the real prosecutor or not. If the complainant knowing that the charge is false tries to mislead the police by procuring false evidence for the conviction of the accused, he would be considered to be the prosecutor.
CS No. 5370/15 Rajiv Tyagi Vs. Ajay Negi Page no.24 of 33
48. Hon'ble Delhi High Court had the occasion to deal with the concept of malicious prosecution, in case titled as, Deepak Rathaur and Anr. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Lal Dass, decided on 23.09.2016, in RSA No. 01/16, wherein, it was observed that : "At the outset, it is relevant to mention here and rightly pointed out by the appellant that every acquittal in a criminal case does not necessarily gives a right to the accused to file a suit for malicious prosecution or defamation. There has to be some basis for that which is to be seen and considered in the eyes of law. Malicious prosecution is a tort, the liability of which consists in improperly instituting unsuccessful criminal proceedings for an improper purpose and without reasonable and probable cause. An action for damages can be maintained for the abuse of such legal process. The law is well settled that malice and absence of reasonable and probable cause are distinct and separate facts and that absence of reasonable and probable cause does not lead to any presumption that complaint was actuated by malice. Total absence of reasonable and probable cause may be relied upon as evidence for inferring malice but it is not the law that the absence of reasonable and probable cause must necessarily lead to the raising of a presumption that defendant was actuated by malice. It has been held in Raja Brija Sunder Dev Vs. Ram Dev Dass, AIR 1944 PC 1, that in order to succeed and action for malicious prosecution the plaintiff must in the first instance prove two things (1) the defendant was malicious (2) that he acted without reasonable and probable cause. The burden however lies CS No. 5370/15 Rajiv Tyagi Vs. Ajay Negi Page no.25 of 33 upon the plaintiff to prove that want of reasonable and probable cause. Another essential ingredient for an action for malicious prosecution is the damage suffered by the plaintiff. A claim for malicious prosecution cannot be sustained without proof of damage. Thus, tort of malicious prosecution is essentially an action for damages and following elements must be proved by the plaintiff.
➢ That the proceedings have been instituted or continued by the defendant. ➢ That the proceedings have been unsuccessful that is to say that they must have been terminated in favour of plaintiff who is now suing. ➢ That the defendant must have acted without reasonable and probable cause.
➢ That the defendant must have acted maliciously. ➢ Plaintiff had suffered damages."
49. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the aforesaid case law also appreciated the value of criminal Courts judgement. It was observed : "the judgement of the Criminal Court would be conclusive for the purpose of showing that the prosecution terminated in favour of the plaintiff. It has been held in Suparti Vs. Shamshuddin, AIR 1928 ALL 337, that "the judgement of the Criminal Courts are conclusive for the purpose of showing that the prosecution terminated in favour of the plaintiff but we doubt if, the findings of the Criminal Court by themselves are any evidence of malice or want of reasonable and probable cause. It is for the Civil Court to go into all the evidence and decide by itself, whether such malice or cause existed or not"."
CS No. 5370/15 Rajiv Tyagi Vs. Ajay Negi Page no.26 of 33
50. After considering aforesaid observations of various Hon'ble High Courts, I find that malicious prosecution is a tort, which has to be filed by the plaintiff, coupled with the relief of damages. In order to prove that tort, plaintiff has to prove that defendant had prosecuted him maliciously or without reasonable and probable cause and such prosecution ended in favour of plaintiff. The word 'malicious' has arisen from the noun "malice" which as per Oxford Dictionary means "the desire to harm someone/ illwill". Besides that, a mere acquittal in criminal proceedings by itself does not tantamount to the existence of malice or absence of reasonable and probable cause for said prosecution. It is the plaintiff who has to plead and prove those ingredients before he can get the decree of damages on account of malicious prosecution by defendants.
51. Coming back to the facts of present case, I find that as per plaintiff, defendants had the illwill against him for the reason that plaintiff did not entertain them by giving them police tax/ hafta. Plaintiff could have proved said malice on the part of defendants by giving details of the type of said illegal demand and the time when they were made by defendants. He failed on both accounts. His allegations regarding alleged illegal demands of defendants, were vague in nature. So, as such, plaintiff to prove malice on the part of defendants.
52. Further, by his own conduct, prior to filing of this suit and after filing it, plaintiff failed to probablize his case based on malice of defendants towards him. Prior to filing of this suit, plaintiff had made complaint to the police department against the illegal acts of defendants but that complaint dated 23.01.2006, marked as MarkA, he did not mention the names of defendants in question, which made that complaint vague in nature. He conceded in his testimony that he had not mentioned the names of defendants in the said complaint and that is why, in the absence of specific details that complaint, lost CS No. 5370/15 Rajiv Tyagi Vs. Ajay Negi Page no.27 of 33 its significance. Apart from that, in the said complaint, which recorded the incident that had occurred in the intervening night of 17.01.2006 and 18.01.2006, plaintiff had stated that police had come to his shop at about 11 pm. As per PW2 and PW3, police had reached the shop of plaintiff at about 10 pm but PW4 had deposed that police had reached there at about 99.15 pm. Therefore, the time police had reached at the spot, was not uniformly stated by the plaintiff witnesses, which improbablized the case of plaintiff. That, sums up the previous conduct of plaintiff, prior to filing of this suit. Apart from that, he had deposed in his testimony that even after filing of present suit, the police officials were trying to pressurize him to withdraw this case, but he did not file any complaint against them, which again made his conduct questionable, as a reasonable prudent person, in such situation, would have filed complaint against the wrong doers. So, after filing of this suit, conduct of plaintiff continued to be dubious, which did not help his cause.
53. So far as, reasonable and probable cause is concerned, the fact that defendant no. 2 had prepared documents Ex.PW5/A (Colly) only indicate that those documents were prepared in ordinary course of official duties and as such, cannot be doubted, just like that in the absence of any false attributing factor. Coupled with the same, application of compromise filed by plaintiff and Mool Chand jointly, further indicated that there was some quarrel between them which they settled, by virtue of said settlement. Had there been no such settlement, I could have appreciated the allegations of plaintiff in the context, raised by him, but in the presence of said settlement, version of plaintiff cannot be believed. Therefore, there were reasonable and probable cause for filing of kalandara dated 18.01.2006 by defendant no. 2 and it cannot be seen as an act being done without reasonable and probable cause.
CS No. 5370/15 Rajiv Tyagi Vs. Ajay Negi Page no.28 of 33
54. Proceedings before Special Executive Magistrate, as filed by the plaintiff and marked as Ex.PW5/A (Colly), only indicate that plaintiff was discharged from the said proceedings, which were based on criminal law and that order of discharge, by itself cannot be seen and concluded to be an act of malice or an act without reasonable and probable cause on the part of defendants in the wake of observations passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Deepak Rathaure Case (supra). So, said outcome of criminal proceedings by itself did not help the cause of plaintiff.
55. Defendants on their part had examined themselves to probablize their case. Defendant no. 8 had examined himself as DW1 and tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.DW1/A, in which, he deposed that he had no knowledge about the relations between plaintiff and rest of the defendants, prior to his posting in police station, Nand Nagri. He confirmed the due preparation of kalandara dated 15.09.2005. He testified that plaintiff is a person of quarrelsome nature involved in antisocial activities. This witness was cross examined at length by plaintiff. This witness did not concede that he had any malice against plaintiff, as suggested to him by plaintiff. Though, his authority to visit site in question was challenged by plaintiff in the intervening night of 14/15.09.2005, but plaintiff did not place on record any proof regarding lack of authority on the part of this witness, for visiting site in question on the relevant date and time and to that extent, crossexamination was vague in nature. His testimony was relevant to the extent that kalandara dated 15.09.2005 was duly prepared and to that extent, he held his ground in the crossexamination. Besides that, his testimony was not relevant and therefore, plaintiff failed to cull out any material fact from his mouth, in his crossexamination, with regard to existence of malice or absence of reasonable and probable cause in preparing kalandara dated 15.09.2005. I believed his testimony and it probablized the case of defendant no. 8.
CS No. 5370/15 Rajiv Tyagi Vs. Ajay Negi Page no.29 of 33
56. Defendant no. 7 had examined himself as DW2 by tendering his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW2/A, in which, he deposed facts in tune with the Written Statement of defendants. This witness stuck to his version regarding due execution of kalandaras MarkB and MarkC respectively alongwith MLC of plaintiff MarkD. Plaintiff was not able to bring about any improbability in the due execution of said documents. In fact, there was no suggestion with regard to existence of malice on the part of this witness and absence of reasonable and probable cause on his part against plaintiff. There was no suggestion that MLC MarkD was wrong. Besides that, rest of the testimony of this witness was not relevant. The aforesaid relevant part, only probablized the case of this defendant. I believed it to be truthful.
57. Defendant no. 5 had examined himself as DW4 by tendering in evidence his affidavit Ex.D4, in which, he deposed facts in tune with the contents of Written Statement. His testimony was relevant to the extent that kalandaras in question were duly prepared, as per law. No specific incident was put to him when he had visited the dhaba of plaintiff for the purpose of eating there without paying any bill. In fact, vague suggestion was given to him regarding his visit to the dhaba of plaintiff, which was refuted by him. There was no suggestion, which was given to him with regard to existence of malice on the part of this witness and absence of reasonable and probable cause on his part against plaintiff. There was no suggestion that MLC MarkD was wrong. Besides that, rest of the testimony of this witness was not relevant. The aforesaid relevant part, only probablized the case of this defendant. I believed it to be truthful.
CS No. 5370/15 Rajiv Tyagi Vs. Ajay Negi Page no.30 of 33
58. Defendant no. 3 had examined himself as DW5 and he tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.D5, in which, he reiterated the contents of Written Statement. Testimony of this witness, did not help the case of defendants as he conceded that he had not filed any Written Statement in this case and he had no knowledge about his affidavit Ex.D5. Further, his testimony did not help the cause of plaintiff, as he denied his visit to the dhaba of plaintiff by misusing his police uniform and also that he had falsely implicated plaintiff in kalandaras in question, by colluding with the IO concerned. So, his testimony is discarded by me. As, it did not help the cause of either of the litigating parties in question and also for the reason that it was not trustworthy.
59. The net result of aforesaid appreciation of testimonies of the witnesses of rival parties, is that plaintiff failed to prove his case and defendants were able to probablize their case.
60. Apart from aforesaid appreciation, plaintiff failed to prove the basis on which, he had quantified his damage to the extent of Rs. 2,00,000/, as prayed by him in the plaint. He had testified that he had quantified that amount on the basis of his insult, expenses and arrest, but said explanation, as such, did not explain clearly as to how he had come to the conclusion that he had suffered damages to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/, neither more nor less than that. Case of plaintiff, failed on that account also. He also failed to give any cogent proof, regarding alleged conspiracy between all the defendants for implicating him in criminal cases by virtue of kalandaras in question. He failed to prove the exact nature of threats by the individual defendants, which they used to advance to him when plaintiff used to ask them for paying bills in respect of eating mills in his dhaba. So, plaintiff failed to prove his case on those aspects also.
CS No. 5370/15 Rajiv Tyagi Vs. Ajay Negi Page no.31 of 33
61. One thing, which plaintiff candidly admitted in his evidence, was that he was not having the necessary licence to run his businesses. As such, problem lied therein. It was plaintiff, who was not running his businesses, as per law and so, before pointing out fingers against police officials, he should have acted a like a law abiding citizen by obtaining necessary licences for running his businesses. It is trite to mention here that a person moving the Court, must come with clean hands, but plaintiff in this case, had his hands filled with blots. As such, he is not entitled to any lawful relief, as he failed to show to the Court that he is following due process of law in earning his livelihood. Case of plaintiff, failed on that account also.
62. Before coming to the conclusion, I must mention here that Ld. Counsel for plaintiff had argued that suit of plaintiff is not barred by Section 197 Cr.PC. In this regard, he placed on record certain case laws viz. Subhramanian Swami Vs. Manmohan Singh & Ors.(2012) 3 SCC 64 ; Choudhary Praveen Sultana Vs. State of West Bengal, I (2009) SLT 664 ; and Sakuntala Bai Vs. Venkata Krishna Reddy, AIR 1952 MADRAS 667. After hearing the said arguments and considering the said case laws, this Court wondered as to why those submissions were made by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and why those case laws were referred by him, for the reason that this is a civil litigation wherein, procedure as mentioned in Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, had to be followed and which was, infact, followed. This case had no concern with the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure including Section 197 of the said Code. The case laws referred by plaintiff, were based on the interpretation of Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure, which were not relevant for the purpose of adjudication of issues settled by this Court. Even otherwise, there was no issue pertaining to applicability of Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure in this case. Those submissions and case laws, therefore, are discarded by this Court, in totality, for the said reasoning.
CS No. 5370/15 Rajiv Tyagi Vs. Ajay Negi Page no.32 of 33
63. In the background of aforesaid and findings, plaintiff failed to prove the aforesaid issue. The said issue is decided against plaintiff.
64. The net result therefore is, that plaintiff to prove his case. Suit stands dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. DecreeSheet be prepared, accordingly.
65. File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance.
[PRASHANT SHARMA]
Announced in the open Court ARC/ACJ/CCJ
on 08.02.2017 NorthEast Distt, KKD, Delhi
CS No. 5370/15 Rajiv Tyagi Vs. Ajay Negi Page no.33 of 33