Delhi District Court
Prof. Meena Sharma (Retd) vs Dainik Jagran Publication on 10 February, 2020
: 1 :
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANUJ AGRAWAL,
ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, WEST,TIS HAZARI, DELHI
CIVIL SUIT NO. 608079/16
Prof. Meena Sharma (Retd)
W/o Late Maj. Ranvir Singh,
R/o B1/22, Ansal Suryoudaya Vihar,
Shastri Nagar, Meerut (U.P) .........Plaintiff
Versus
1. Dainik Jagran Publication,
through its Editor,
Mr. Sanjay Gupta,
140/141, Saket, Meerut, U.P
2. Mr. Sanjay Gupta,
Editor, Dainik Jagran Publication,
140/141, Saket, Meerut, U.P
3. Mr. Dhirender Mohan,
Printer, Dainik Jagran,
Dainik Jagran Press,
Bijli Bamba, Mubarakpur,
Delhi Road, Meerut,
U.P
4. Mrs. Swati Singh,
W/o Sh. Shantanu Singh,
Daughter of B182, Lajpat NagarI,
New Delhi110024 .....Defendants
CS No. 608079/16 Prof. Meena Sharma vs Dainik Jagran Publication
: 2 :
Date of filing the suit : 20.11.2007
Date when reserved for order : Not reserved
Date of Order : 10.02.2020
JUDGMENT
1. This judgment shall decide the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/.
Pleadings
2. The essential brief facts are that the plaintiff is a retired professor of Law from Choudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut, U.P. As per plaintiff, she has deep roots in the society and enjoys impeccable credentials and is known for her intellectual pursuits. Plaintiff further avers that she has got a tremendous goodwill and very good reputation in the society. As per plaintiff, she belongs to very reputed family on her maternal as well as inlaws side. It is stated that defendant no. 4 is the daughterinlaw of plaintiff and was married to her younger son namely Shantanu on 15.02.2001.
3. Plaintiff goes on to aver that defendant no. 4 lodged various baseless complaints against plaintiff and her son. It is averred that defendant no.4 deliberately and willfully without even specifying the CS No. 608079/16 Prof. Meena Sharma vs Dainik Jagran Publication : 3 : allegations against the plaintiff manipulated the police authorities at Delhi and got conducted a police raid at her residence at B1/22, Ansal Suryodaya Vihar, Shastri Nagar, Meerut. As per plaintiff, the raid as manipulated by the defendant no. 4, has dented her reputation and social image which has lowered her, in the estimation of right thinking people in the society.
4. As per the case of plaintiff, on 20.11.2006, Dainik Jagran i.e. defendant no.1 had carried a news item titled as "Dahej Utpidan ki aaropi Professor farrar". It is stated that defendant no. 4 was quoted in the said news item as "a victim of harassment, torture, cruelty and dowry demands". It is further stated that in the said news item, defendant no. 4 alleged physical cruelty by her husband and his mother i.e. plaintiff. As per plaintiff, the said news item depict the plaintiff as an offender and the said news item was published only to defame the plaintiff without ascertaining the truth and without ascertaining the facts from the plaintiff.
5. As per the plaintiff that the very seen of the police raid team led by defendant no. 4 and her father was quite offensive to the neighbours who have deep regards and respect for the plaintiff . It is CS No. 608079/16 Prof. Meena Sharma vs Dainik Jagran Publication : 4 : further averred that since the publication of the defamatory news item, plaintiff has been receiving various calls/inquiries from her relatives, friends and other members of society who have started suspecting her. As per plaintiff, she has been shunned by many of her known people.
6. As per plaintiff, the said news item is defamatory and same was published and printed by defendant no. 2 and defendant no 3, without verifying the facts and without verifying the contents of the FIR though the same is also false. Defendant no. 2 is stated to be the Editor and defendant no. 3 is stated to be printer of defendant no.1. It is stated that the police raid and the statements attributed to the defendant no. 4 have seriously damaged the reputation of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has suffered immense loss of the reputation which can neither be quantified nor compensated but in law for the time being, plaintiff is claiming the damages of Rs. 10 Lacs.
7. On these averments, plaintiff seeks a decree for sum of Rs. 10 Lacs in her favour and against the defendants. It is further prayed that defendant no.1 to 3 be directed to publish a written apology in their publication citing the title of the defamatory news item and date of CS No. 608079/16 Prof. Meena Sharma vs Dainik Jagran Publication : 5 : such publication.
8. On being served with summons, defendants appeared in the court and filed their written statement. Joint written statement was filed on behalf of defendant no. 1 to 3. In the written statement, defendants have averred that the news item was based upon the FIR registered on the complaint of defendant no. 4 and the information gathered from the concerned police station. As per defendants, same does not amount to defamation. It is further averred that the allegations as reported in the news are that of the defendant no. 4 and the defendants (no. 1 to 3) have nothing to do with the same.
9. As per defendants, the concerned reporter had tried to contact the plaintiff on the date of incident but she was not available for comments. It is stated that on 22.11.2006, the version of the plaintiff was published in the same newspaper. As per defendants, the version of the plaintiff as well as defendant no. 4 was published fairly without any favour or malice against anyone and therefore, it is wrong to alleged that the defendants no. 1 to 3 had published the news article malafide and with a view to defame the plaintiff.
10. Defendants go on to aver that the news item published on CS No. 608079/16 Prof. Meena Sharma vs Dainik Jagran Publication : 6 : 20.11.2006 was on the basis of the complaint made to the police by defendant no.4, the FIR registered by the police and the information gathered by the reporter at the spot and from the police officials who had come to the house of the plaintiff alongwith defendant no.4 for conducting the raid. It is stated that defendants no. 1 to 3 had no intention to defame the plaintiff at any point of time but to report the news fairly in public interest.
11. Separate written statement was filed on behalf of defendant no.4 wherein it is stated plaintiff is one of the accused in the FIR lodged at her instance against plaintiff and her son. Defendant no. 4 denied that she manipulated the police or that she got conducted any police raids. It is averred that she accompanied the police on their asking and to identify her belongings lying at the house of the plaintiff. As per defendant no. 4, police raid does not amount to defamation otherwise, in every police investigation would lead to a suit for defamation. It is stated that the plaintiff is not entitled for any claim.
12. Replication was filed on behalf of plaintiff wherein she reiterated the contents of plaint and denied the averments made by defendants in their written statements.
CS No. 608079/16 Prof. Meena Sharma vs Dainik Jagran Publication : 7 : Issues
13. After completion of the pleadings, vide order dated 03.06.2011 following issues were framed:
Issue no. 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of damages to the tune of Rs.10 Lacs, as prayed for? OPP Issue no. 2: Whether the contents of the news item published in ' Dainik Jagran' on 20.11.2006 circulated in Meerut contains defamatory language? OPP Issue no. 3: Whether this court lack territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit? OPD2&3.
Issue no. 4: Whether the suit is time barred? OPD4 Issue no. 5: Relief
14. It is relevant to mention here that issue no. 3 and 4 being issues of law were treated as preliminary issues. Vide order dated 08.08.2013, the said issues were decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants. Thereafter, matter proceeded for trial qua remaining issues.
Plaintiff's Evidence
15. In order to prove her case, plaintiff examined himself as PW1.
CS No. 608079/16 Prof. Meena Sharma vs Dainik Jagran Publication : 8 : She tendered her affidavit in examinationinchief as Ex.PW1/A wherein she reaffirmed the contents of the plaint on oath. PW1 relied upon newspaper article as Ex. PW1/1, however, the same was de exhibited as Mark A being photocopy.
16. Plaintiff also examined Sh. R.N Jha as PW2. He tendered his affidavit in examinationinchief as Ex.PW2/A wherein he deposed that that he had read the news article "Dahej Utpidan ki aaropi Professor farrar" as published in Dainik Jagran , Meerut on 20.11.2006. As per PW2, the said article showed plaintiff in bad light and created an impression that she is an offender who is on run. As per witness, the article created a bad image and dented the plaintiff's reputation. PW2 was crossexamined on behalf of defendant wherein he deposed that each and every content of the news were incorrect. He further deposed that plaintiff was not at home on the day when Delhi Police visited her house and same does not mean that she has absconded. No other witness was examined by the plaintiff.
Defendant's Evidence
17. In order to prove their case, defendant no. 1 to 3 examined Sh Rajesh Kumar Dubey as DW1. He tendered his affidavit in CS No. 608079/16 Prof. Meena Sharma vs Dainik Jagran Publication : 9 : examinationinchief as Ex.DW1/A wherein he reaffirmed the contents of written statement on oath. DW1 relied upon Copy of news reprot dated 22.11.2006 as Ex. DW1/1 and Copy of FIR no. 1068/2006 as Ex. DW1/2. DW1 was crossexamined on behalf of plaintiff and then discharged. No other witness was examined by the defendants.
18. Arguments heard. Record perused.
Findings
19. My issue wise findings are as follows: Issue no. 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of damages to the tune of Rs.10 Lacs, as prayed for? OPP Issue no. 2: Whether the contents of the news item published in ' Dainik Jagran' on 20.11.2006 circulated in Meerut contains defamatory language? OPP
20. Since the issue no.1 and 2 are interconnected, therefore same are being taken up together for disposal. The onus of proving said issues CS No. 608079/16 Prof. Meena Sharma vs Dainik Jagran Publication : 10 : was upon plaintiff. As per plaintiff, defendant no. 4 had got lodged a false FIR against her and on the basis of same, she manipulated a police raid at her house which dented her reputation and lowered her image in the estimation of right thinking people of society. It is admitted case of parties that an FIR was lodged against plaintiff at the instance of defendant no. 4. As per plaintiff, the said FIR was baseless and on false accusations.
21. In Vijay Gulati Vs. Radhika (2010) 119 DRJ 482, the issue before Delhi High Court was regarding maintainability of a suit for damages for defamatory statements made in complaints made to the police and wide spread and open circulation thereof. It was held (a) that till the time the charges levelled against the plaintiff are not disproved or not proved, it could not be said that the allegations in the complaint were without any merit; (b) that the allegations in the complaint could not be said to be defamatory; (c) that a suit for damages for defamation cannot be initiated as a surrogate litigation as a counterblast and to use it as a lever to tame the defendant; (d) that the defendant/complainant cannot be put on a defensive by initiation of such a suit for damages for defamation; (e) that the suit for damages for defamation cannot be used as a lever to get the dragnet by criminal cases; (f) reliance was placed on Bira Garari Vs. Dulhin Somaria AIR 1962 Patna 229 (DB) laying down CS No. 608079/16 Prof. Meena Sharma vs Dainik Jagran Publication Page : 11 : that in a case of defamation on the basis of registration of a cognizable offence, it could not be said that the person had been defamed unless and until the said complaint is tested before the appropriate forum; (g) once a person puts criminal law into action, the other party cannot lodge and bring about a suit for defamation so as to stop those criminal proceedings; (h) that the appropriate remedy for such a plaintiff would be either to institute a suit for damages for malicious prosecution or to get a case registered under Section 182 Cr.P.C.; (i) that the suit for damages for defamation is premature till the complaint is rejected. Accordingly, the suit was held not maintainable and the plaint was rejected.
22. Similarly, the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Pedda Sanjivi Reddy Vs. Kondasari Koneri Reddi AIR 1926 Mad 521 held that the statements made to the police officer which could only be made with a view to their being repeated on oath before the Magistrate as well as statements in the petition presented to the Magistrate have been invested by the common law of England with absolute privilege which attaches not merely to the actual proceedings of any tribunal exercising judicial function, but to all preliminary steps which are in accordance with the cognised and reasonable procedure of such a tribunal.
CS No. 608079/16 Prof. Meena Sharma vs Dainik Jagran Publication Page : 12 :
23. Further, in Anjana Saikia (Das) Vs. Anuradha Das 2003 SCC OnLine Gau 321 it was held that though an action for defamation by statement in the FIR would lie but only after the FIR case was decided.
Similarly, in Mahavir Singh Vs. Surinder Singh 2010 SCC OnLine P&H 9094 also it was held that mere lodging of the FIR, though it may contain false imputation, does not amount to defaming the person against whom FIR is lodged. To the same effect is Kamlesh Kaur Vs. Lakhwinder Singh 2008 SCC OnLine P&H 920.
24. Furthermore, High Court of Madras in A.N. Shanmugam Vs. G. Saravanan 2015 SCC OnLine Mad 728 held that if every complainant who lodges the complaint with law enforcing agency is to face civil cases for defamation on the premise that the imputations made in the complaint according to the accused are false, many people fearing such actions on the part of the accused may not come forward to lodge a complaint to the law enforcing agency. It was further held that when an imputation has been made in a complaint made to the law enforcing agency with the belief that such agency would take criminal action against the persons against whom such imputations are made, the same provides a valid exception taking such act outside the scope of tort of defamation. It was held that the lodging of the complaint with the police CS No. 608079/16 Prof. Meena Sharma vs Dainik Jagran Publication Page : 13 : could not be considered to be publication of a defamatory statement and that if any wrong is committed by lodging a false complaint with the police and thereby setting the criminal law in motion, it may amount to malicious prosecution for which action can be taken only after disposal of the criminal case, wherein a specific finding is given to that effect.
25. If the case of plaintiff (qua defendant no.4) is tested upon on the touchstone of aforesaid principle of law, the only irresistible conclusion would be that no action for defamation can lie in the instant case against defendant no.4. Apart from making bare assertions that the FIR lodged by defendant no.4 was false and baseless, plaintiff did not lead any evidence in support of said assertions. There is not even an iota of evidence to suggest if the said FIR was found to be false and baseless by the investigating agency or the concerned court had given a finding to this effect in favour of plaintiff. As per plaintiff, the raid by police was manipulated by defendant no.4 against her. However, again, this plea of plaintiff pales into insignificance for want of any evidence in this regard.
26. Be that as it may, the copy of FIR Ex. DW1/2 (which is an admitted document) is on record which reveals that same was registered under Section 406/498A/34 IPC. The said offences are cognizable in nature meaning thereby police can investigate or arrest the accused in such CS No. 608079/16 Prof. Meena Sharma vs Dainik Jagran Publication Page : 14 : case without any orders from concerned Magistrate. The plaintiff was admittedly an accused in the said FIR and therefore, in my view, any police raid subsequent to registration of FIR, was an action taken by police in exercise of their statutory duty as enshrined under the scheme of code of criminal procedure and therefore, the assertion of plaintiff that the police raid was manipulated by defendant no.4, is nothing but like 'building castles in spain.'
27. Plaintiff having failed to prove the FIR being false and baseless, and for want of any evidence qua alleged manipulation of police raid, the case of plaintiff against defendant no.4 is bound to fail and she is not entitled for recovery of any sum much less the sum prayed for (10 lakhs) against defendant no.4.
28. Now to the case of plaintiff against defendant no.1 to 3: As per plaintiff, a defamatory article titled "Dahej Utpidan ki aaropi Professor farrar" was published on 20.11.2006 by defendant no.1 of which defendant no.2 and 3 are Editor/Printer respectively. For the sake of convenience, the said article is being reproduced as follows:
" Bahu ki shikayat par Delhi Police aayi thi giraftaar karne Meerut, Jagran Sanvaddata : Medical Thanantargat Ansal Colony Niwasi sewanirvit vidhi ki professor aur unke putra CS No. 608079/16 Prof. Meena Sharma vs Dainik Jagran Publication Page : 15 : ko marpit aur dahej utripan ke mamle mein giraftar karne pahuchi delhi police bairang laut gayi. Professsor police ko chakma dekar farar ho gayi.
Chaudhary Charan Singh vivi se sevanirvit vidhi ki professor Meena Sahrma aur unke bete Shantanu Sharma ke khilaf bahu Swati ne maarpit, dahej, utripan aadi ke tahat 13 September ko mamla darj karaya gaya tha. Thana Lajpat Nagar Delhi Police din me sade 10 baje Ansal Colony Stith BI22 Makan number par done ko giraftaar karne ghar ke bahu Swati aur uke parijano ke saath pahunchi. Jis samay police pahunchi, Meena Sharma naha rahi thi. Policekarmi 40 minute tak uska darwaje par intjar karte rahe. Udhar professor Sharma mauka tekh makan ke peeche se farar ho gayi. Pados ke ek mahila ke waha pahuchne par iska pata chala. Isse Naraj Delhi police ke SI R.S Naruka ne padosi mahilao se kaha ke ye Meena Sharma aur uske parijano ke liye mehanga Padega.
Iske baad padosi bhi Meena sharma ke paksh mein ghar se bahar aa gaye. Unhone Swati aur uske pita Shriram ko khari khoti sunayi. Swati aur padosiyon ke beech behes bhi hui. Iske baad police team jaruri prakriyaon ki khanapurti kar chali gayi. Police ke sath he swati aur uske parijan bhi laut gaye. Isse pehle police ki anumati par padosi mahila ne ghar mein tala laga liya....".
29. A careful perusal of the said news article reveals that the news item is nothing but a fair reporting of the events occurred on the date of raid. As per DW1, the news item was based upon the FIR (which was lodged by defendant no.4 against plaintiff). The defendants (no.1 to 3) have emphatically denied that the impugned article got published in collusion CS No. 608079/16 Prof. Meena Sharma vs Dainik Jagran Publication Page : 16 : with defendant no.4, to defame the plaintiff. It is not the case of the plaintiff also that the FIR/complaint which has been reported in the impugned article was not made against her or same had been found to be false or frivolous prior to the date of impugned article. Further, it is also not the case of plaintiff that the said raid was not conducted by police at her house. Though the plaintiff has asserted that the said raid was manipulated by defendant no.4, however, I have already held the said plea to be untenable at the preceding paras (27 and 28).
30. As per defendants, the concerned reporter had tried to contact the plaintiff on the date of incident but she was not available for the comments, however, on 22.11.2006, the version of plaintiff was published in same newspaper. The said version has been proved on record as Ex. DW1/1. The article Ex. DW1/1 fully set outs the response of the plaintiff, of the allegations against her being without any basis. In the said article, the plaintiff had not only refuted the version of defendant no.4 (qua dowry) but had also asserted that it was defendant no.4 who had demanded Rs. 15 lakhs from her. The said article was published immediately after the publication of impugned news article. Therefore, it is clear that defendants (no.1 to 3) were merely reporting the rival versions of the parties (plaintiff and defendant no.4) without any malice or favour to any particular party. It is evident that the CS No. 608079/16 Prof. Meena Sharma vs Dainik Jagran Publication Page : 17 : impugned news article (dated 20.11.2016) was nothing but a fair reporting of the allegations made by defendant no.4 against plaintiff. If the said article is read as a whole in light of the incident which had occurred, it is clear that same is not defamatory as no imputation has been made in the said article by the defendant no.1 to 3 against the plaintiff.
31. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has vehemently argued that the headlines of the said article ('dahej utpiran ki aaropi Professor faraar') and the certain lines of said article viz. "Professor police ko chakma deke faraar ho gayi' are per se defamatory. I am not in agreement with ld. Counsel as reading the said line in isolation would not help in arriving at any meaningful conclusion. At the cost of repetition, I may say that reading of the article as a whole reveals that it was the true and fair account of the proceedings that occurred on that day and my view gets fortified once the admitted facts i.e. factum of registration of FIR against the plaintiff for offences under Section 406/498A IPC, factum of conduct of police raid at her house and failure of police to reach her for the purpose of investigation/interrogation are taken into account. As discussed earlier, it is not the case of plaintiff that the said FIR was not registered against her or the police raid was not conducted at her house and therefore, truthful reporting of the events in the newspaper cannot CS No. 608079/16 Prof. Meena Sharma vs Dainik Jagran Publication Page : 18 : tantamount to any defamation as the defendants would be well within their right of 'freedom of press' which has been recognized as part of fundamental right of speech and expression as recognized under Article 19 (A) of Constitution of India. Reliance is placed upon judgment of the Supreme Court in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1967 SC 1 wherein it was held that Journalists have a fundamental right to carry on their occupation under Article 19(1)
(g) and that the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) includes their right to publish as Journalists a faithful report of the proceedings which they have witnessed and heard in Court. Freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) was reiterated to include the freedom of press.
32. Further, in Vineet Jain Vs. NCT of Delhi (2011) 184 DLT 596, the matter was pertaining to a complaint for the offence of defamation by reporting in the media, contents of an FIR registered of offences under Section 294/109/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 IPC read with Section 8 of Immoral Trafficking Act and the raid conducted at a hotel in Delhi. It was held that fair reporting pertaining to a matter of public concern, without insinuations and innuendos i.e. a news item containing statements of true facts emanating from a proper source i.e. police is not actionable for the offence of criminal defamation; a fact pertaining to an CS No. 608079/16 Prof. Meena Sharma vs Dainik Jagran Publication Page : 19 : FIR being registered with reference to the activities found to be carried out from the Hotel as recorded in the FIR made public by the police, was also held to be not amounting to a criminal defamation.
33. In my considered view, the defendants by the impugned article had as a matter of fact informed its patrons of the complaint having been made against the plaintiff, contents thereof and the subsequent events which occurred pursuant to said complaint. The defendants in the impugned article did not make any allegations of its own against plaintiff. The defendants, while so reporting the factual matters as part of its activity of publication of a newspaper, cannot be burdened with the liability of consequences of defamation. If it were to be held otherwise, it would result in nothing but the final result of all enquiries/disputes/judgments being published in the newspapers and the patrons of said newspapers being denied the knowledge of the complaints/disputes pending for enquiry/adjudication. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Veer Arjun Newspaper Pvt. Ltd. Versus Bahori Lal & ors,., RFA246/2003.
34. In view of aforesaid discussion, it is held that the contents of contents of the news item published in ' Dainik Jagran' on 20.11.2006 CS No. 608079/16 Prof. Meena Sharma vs Dainik Jagran Publication Page : 20 : circulated in Meerut does not contain defamatory language. Once the impugned news article is proved to be not defamatory, the case of plaintiff for any damages much less damages to the tune of Rs.10 Lacs also fails. The issues no.1 and 2 are answered accordingly.
35. Relief: The suit of plaintiff is dismissed. Parties to bear their own cost. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by ANUJ ANUJ AGRAWAL
AGRAWAL
Announced in the open court on 10.02.2020.
Date:
2020.02.10
08:01:36 +0530
Anuj Agrawal
ADJ/West/Delhi/10.02.2020
This judgment contains 20 pages and all pages are duly signed by me. ANUJ Digitally signed by ANUJ AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2020.02.10 08:01:45 +0530 Anuj Agrawal ADJ/West/Delhi/10.02.2020 CS No. 608079/16 Prof. Meena Sharma vs Dainik Jagran Publication Page