Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court

Dr. S.C. Vats vs Ms. Shipra Singh & Ors. on 31 January, 2020

Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 DEL 165

Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw

Bench: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw

$~22
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+    CS(OS) 41/2020
     DR. S.C.VATS                                ..... Plaintiff
                    Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi & Mr. Sanjeev
                               Sindhwani, Sr. Advs. with Mr. Saket
                               Sikri, Ms. Ekta Sikri, Mr. Nikhil
                               Singhvi, Mr. Ajay Pal Singh & Mr.
                               Kshitij Mudgal, Advs.
                            Versus
     SHIPRA SINGH & ORS.                         ..... Defendants
                    Through: None.
     CORAM:
     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
                    ORDER

% 31.01.2020 IA No.1456/2020 (for exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

2. The application is disposed of.

IA No.1454/2020 (under Section 148 CPC)

3. Accepting the undertaking of the counsel for the plaintiff that the deficiency in court fees will be made up within one week, the time for depositing the entire court fees is extended by one week.

4. If the court fees is not filed, the Registry to put up the matter before this Court.

5. The application is disposed of.

CS(OS) 41/2020, IA No.1453/2020 (under Order XXXIX R-1&2 CPC) & IA No.1455/2020 (under Order II Rule 2 CPC)

6. The suit, on urgent mentioning, was ordered to be listed today itself for hearing.

7. The plaintiff, a contestant for the Delhi Legislative Assembly Election, 2020 scheduled on 8th February, 2020, from Shakur Basti constituency, has CS(OS) 41/2020 Page 1 of 6 instituted this suit against defendants no.1 to 5 viz. (i) Shipra Singh, (ii) Hindustan Times, (iii) Google India Pvt. Ltd., (iv) Google Inc. and (v) Ashok Kumar, for (a) permanent injunction to restrain the known and unknown defendants from publishing or disseminating the defamatory material as specified in paragraphs 22,23 and 25 of the plaint or the material as detailed in the list of documents filed with the plaint; (b) mandatory injunction directing the defendant no.2 to take down the offending article / publication, titled "BJP Leader S.C. Vats booked for sexually assaulting a woman" available at URL www.hindustantimes.com/delhi/bjp-leader-sc- vats-booked-for-sexually-assaulting-a-woman/story-oVC0WUwHgSf7WO7 aRbDwOP.html; and, (c) mandatory injunction directing the defendants no.3 and 4 to remove the links to the offending articles detailed in paragraph 22 of the plaint.

8. The senior counsel for the plaintiff has contended that, (i) the defendant no.1 had lodged a complaint against the plaintiff of the offences under Section 376 (2), 354, 354A,B&D, 201 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 67 of the Information Act, 2000 and on which FIR No.149/2015 of Police Station Maurya Enclave, Delhi was registered against the plaintiff; (ii) the plaintiff, vide order dated 18th January, 2018 of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), Special Fast Track Court, North-West, Rohini Courts, Delhi, was discharged of the offence of rape and the prosecution remitted to the Magistrate for trial of other offences; (iii) the plaintiff has not been charged as yet; (iv) however on the platform of defendant no.2, the following report dated 19th February, 2015 is still available:

"BJP leader SC Vats booked for sexually assaulting a woman A BJP leader who unsuccessfully contested the recent Delhi Assembly elections from Shakur Basti has been booked for allegedly molesting and sexually assaulting a woman while she was attached with an institute in Delhi, police said on Wednesday.

According to police, SC Vats, who is chairman of an institute in the Pitampura area of north-west Delhi, has been booked under Sections 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty) and 376 (rape) of IPC.

In her complaint lodged at Maurya Enclave police station on January 28, the 33-year-old victim has alleged that Vats raped her on several occasions while she was working at the institute. She also told police that the BJP leader allegedly used to pass remarks at her and threatened her with dire consequences if she told anyone about the assault.

The complainant said she quit her job in May, 2014, due to the continuous assaults and harassment by Vats.

"Police have registered a case against Vats and further investigation is on," said Deputy Commissioner of Police (north-west), N Gananasambandan.

Vats, who was in Congress for several years, joined BJP in December last year and contested the recently-concluded elections from the Shakur Basti constituency.

He was defeated by Aam Aadmi Party leader Satyendra Jain.",

(v) once the plaintiff has been discharged of the charge of rape, the content on the website of defendant no.2 to the effect that the plaintiff had been booked under Section 376 of the IPC, is ex facie defamatory of the plaintiff and effects the chances of the plaintiff in the ensuing election; and, CS(OS) 41/2020 Page 3 of 6

(vi) attention is drawn to pages 158 and 159 of Part-IIIA file, being the WhatsApp messages being circulated, on the basis of the report aforesaid on the website of defendant no.2, conveying that the plaintiff had also been accused of the offence of rape, when in fact the plaintiff stands discharged thereof and which order has attained finality.

9. Issue summons of the suit and notice of the application for interim relief to defendants no.1 to 4, by all modes including dasti and electronic, returnable on 19th February, 2020.

10. The senior counsel for the plaintiff has pressed for ex parte relief, for taking down of the impugned content from the electronic platform of the defendants no.2 to 4.

11. I have enquired from the senior counsel for the plaintiff, that once the plaintiff is still accused of other offences qua which FIR was registered, how can the information afore-quoted, which is relating to the offences under Sections 354, 354A, B&D, 201, 506 as well as 376 of IPC, be dissected. Though the plaintiff has been discharged of the offence under Section 376 but is still accused of the offence under Section 354, 354A, B&D, 201, 506 IPC and Section 67 of Information Technology Act under which also the FIR has been registered. The Court certainly cannot by its order, direct the allegedly defamatory material to be so dissected.

12. The senior counsel for the plaintiff contends that since the impugned content also contains information which is not correct as of today, the impugned content is liable to be removed in entirety.

13. I am unable to agree, it is up to the plaintiff to inform its electorate that he has been discharged of the offence under Section 376 IPC. Else, it is the settled law that the electorate should have all available information CS(OS) 41/2020 Page 4 of 6 relating to the candidate seeking their franchise and with this objective only, the directions were issued in Union of India Vs. Association of Democratic Reforms (2002) 5 SCC 294 and the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 amended, to provide for disclosure to be made in Form 26. Once that is the objective to be served, interference by the Court in the manner sought, would run counter thereto and deprive the electorate of a fair chance to decide on the candidate from their constituency whom they want to elect. In view of the FIR against the plaintiff with respect to other offences still pending, the plaintiff, even though discharged of the offence under Section 376 IPC, cannot seek to obliterate from the internet the information to the said extent and only has a right to issue a clarification with respect thereto. It also cannot be lost sight of that the offences of assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty (Section 354), sexual harassment (Section 354A) or use of criminal force to woman with intent to disrobe (Section 354B), stalking (Section 354D) etc. of which the plaintiff is still accused, are allied to the offence of rape (Section 376) of which the plaintiff has been discharged and the impact of other offences of which plaintiff is still accused on the public is likely to be the same as of offence of which plaintiff is discharged. Thus, no case is made out for grant of ex parte order.

14. The senior counsel for the plaintiff has next contended that the sender of the WhatsApp, though unknown and not impleaded but impleaded as Ashok Kumar, be restrained from circulating WhatsApp messages to the effect that the plaintiff is accused of the offence of rape.

15. It has been held that during election and campaigning for elections, a lot of claims and speeches are made and at least the candidates contesting the election cannot be bound by the promises made by them to the electorate and on the same parity, I feel that any restraint on free communication during the process of election is not envisaged under the law relating to elections.

Dasti under signature of Court Master RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J JANUARY 31, 2020 „gsr‟ CS(OS) 41/2020 Page 6 of 6