Delhi District Court
Shri Gyan Prakash vs Indu Kumar Prajapati on 13 May, 2022
In the Court of Ms. Gurmohina Kaur: Additional District Judge-03
(South District) Saket Courts Complex, New Delhi.
CS No.: 7081/16
In the matter of :-
Shri Gyan Prakash
S/o. Late Shri Sabhapari Singh
H-4, Metro Enclave,
Pushp Vihar, Sector-7
New Delhi-110017. .......Plaintiff
Versus
Indu Kumar Prajapati
S/o. Shri Prem Chand
House No. 893/1/C,
Block No. D, Ratia Marg,
Sangam Vihar, New Delhi-110062. ...... Defendant
Date of institution : 18.10.2014
Date of decision : 13.05.2022
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs Only) filed by the Plaintiff on account of damages/ compensation for the defamatory and libelous allegations made by the Defendant along with interest.
2. Facts as alleged in the plaint are that the Plaintiff is the owner of property bearing house no. 893, Gali no. 1-C, Block D Ratia Marg, Sangam CS/7081/16 Page 1 of 17 Vihar New Delhi admeasuring 70 sq yards carved out of Khasra no. 1024, situated at D block gali no. 1-C, Block D Ratia Marg, Sangam Vihar New Delhi (here in after refer to as "suit premises"). It is stated in the Plaintiff purchased the above said house from one Sh. Bheema by way of General Power of Attorney dated 16.04.2004 which was duly registered on 30.04.2004 along with other documents such as Agreement to Sell, Will, Affidavit, Receipt, Possession Letter. It is averred that the Defendant approached the Plaintiff sometime in August 2004 to give one room on rent for the couple of months as he had already purchased a plot near by and would vacate his room upon construction of the plot and shift to his new house thereafter. It is stated that the Plaintiff also got alloted a flat in Metro Enclave, Push Vihar and the Plaintiff family shifted to the alloted accommodation in September 2005 leaving the Defendant and his family one room in his possession as a tenant. It is further stated in the plaint that the other two rooms were locked by the Plaintiff in which valuable household items/goods/electronic gadgets were lying and the Defendant was paying a monthly rental of Rs. 600/- per month. It is stated that after a few months the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to open the second room as it was difficult for his family to get accommodated in one room. The same was agreed by the Plaintiff who shifted all his articles, woods etc to third room which he locked. The Plaintiff further averred that the Defendant on one pretext or the other continued to stay in the suit premises. It is stated that the Defendant supported by anti social element went to the extent of claiming ownership of the suit premises without showing any proof of alleged ownership of the suit premises either before SHO Sangam Vihar on 23.11.2003 or subsequently before the court of Ld. SDM. It is stated that the Plaintiff made the several verbal requests to the Defendant to vacate the suit CS/7081/16 Page 2 of 17 premises since early 2012 as Plaintiff wanted to reconstruct the said premises for himself and his family but the Defendant refused to vacate the suit premises and from the month of June 2012, the Defendant stopped paying the rent and also did not pay the electricity charges to BSES since October 2013 which were then paid by the Plaintiff himself. It is further stated in the plaint that on 26.10.2013, when the Plaintiff visited the suit property, the Defendant caught hold of the Plaintiff's collar and threatened to kill him and his family and the Defendant also threatened that he would never vacate the suit property and thereafter, the Plaintiff filed the complaint in the PS Sangam Vihar on 26.10.2013 requesting them to take urgent and suitable action against the Defendant in accordance with law. It is submitted that on 21.11.2013, when the Plaintiff again visited the suit property the Defendant did not allow him access to the suit property and of the third room wherein the articles and goods of the Plaintiff was stored. The Plaintiff however informed by the neighbors that the lock of the room had been broken and all the items lying in the room had been taken away. It is stated that the Plaintiff immediately filed the complainant dated 21.11.2013 at the police station Sangam Vihar, New Delhi and on 22.11.2013 the Plaintiff and the Defendant were called to PS Sangam Vihar where the Defendant was asked to give proof of the ownership of the suit property. It is averred that instead of bringing the proof of ownership on the next date i.e. 23.11.2013, the Defendant at around 12:55 PM filed the impugned complaint as a counter blast to the complaints of the Plaintiff. It is stated by the Plaintiff that this complainant filed by the Defendant contained very serious, totally false, baseless, insinuatory, defamatory and libelous allegations against the Plaintiff here. It is stated when the Defendant entered the police station on 21.11.2013 at about 11:15 PM with CS/7081/16 Page 3 of 17 certain documents which were telephone bills and identity cards which remotely did not even prove ownership of the Defendant in the suit premises and Defendant had in his hand a copy of the complaint dated 21.11.2013 which was filed by the Plaintiff. He stated that the Defendant also had a receiving copy of his complaint dated 23.11.2013 filed with PS Sangam Vihar which he had filed on the same day at 12:55 PM. It is submitted that except para 1 of the impugned complaint dated 23.11.2013, all the other paragraphs that is paras No. 2,3,4,5,6,7,8 and the last para contained only false, fictitious and defamatory allegations. The Plaintiff reproduced the paragraphs stated aforesaid in the Plaint and further averred that these allegations were falsely alleged to extract money from the Plaintiff as a price for vacating the suit property. It is further submitted that these allegations were without any substance with the ulterior motive made as a counter blast for the complaints made by the Plaintiff. It is stated that on receipt of the certified copy of the impugned complaint filed by the Defendant, the Plaintiff submitted an appropriate reply dated 06.09.2014 to PS Sangam Vihar. It is submitted that the Plaintiff was shocked by the false and defamatory allegations made by the Defendant, slurring the impeccable antecedents of the Plaintiff thereby lowering the dignity of Plaintiff in the mind of right thinking people and the Plaintiff thereafter issue the legal notice to the Defendant dated 22.09.2014 which was received by the Defendant on 23.09.2014. It is prayed that the Plaintiff be awarded a decree of Rs. 10,00,000/- being the damages of defamatory and libelous allegations made by the Defendant along with interest.
3. The Defendant contested this suit by filing his written statement and in his defence stated that the Defendant was the owner and in actual CS/7081/16 Page 4 of 17 possession of the suit property along with his family members since 2004 as the Plaintiff had received an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the Defendant and hd also mortgaged the property in question in the favor of the Defendant with mutual understanding that in circumstance that the Plaintiff failed to pay the said amount to the Defendant by the year 2012, in that eventuality, the Plaintiff shall execute sale documents in favor of the Defendant after receipt of balance market sale consideration. It is stated that the Plaintiff due to financial constraints started demanding more time from the Defendant in respect to the property in question and also assured that the Defendant by the year 2012 or in case his failure to do so, the Plaintiff shall execute the sale deed/sale documents in favor of the Defendant. It is further submitted by the Defendant that he and the Plaintiff continued to have cordial relations till 2012 as the Defendant as per the deeds and demands of the Plaintiff made payment to the Plaintiff without asking for repayment of the earlier amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-. It is stated that the Plaintiff received Rs. 5,45,000/- till 16.09.2013 in totality for which the Plaintiff had executed a separate receipt for a sum of Rs. 5,10,000/- in favor of the Defendant on 20.02.2013 after numerous requests and reminders and the Plaintiff had also issued a receipt for an amount of Rs. 35,000/- received from the Defendant which were arranged by the Defendant after obtaining the loan from Muthoot Fincorp on 16.09.2013. It is stated that when the Defendant inquired in the month of October 2013 from the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff started lingering the matter on one pretext of the other and when a meeting was held in the second week of October 2013, between the Plaintiff and the Defendant along with his father, it was decided that the total market value of the suit property was Rs. 6,50,000/- of which the Plaintiff had already received Rs. 5,45,000/- and the Plaintiff sought some CS/7081/16 Page 5 of 17 time to receive the remaining balance amount and also to execute sale documents of the said property in favor of the Defendant. It is stated in the written statement that instead of honoring his words, the Plaintiff started threatening the Defendant and even threatened to implicate him in a false case. It is stated that thereafter, the Plaintiff in order to grab the hard-earned money received from the Defendant, preferred a false and frivolous and malicious complaint to SHO PS Sangam Vihar on 26.10.2013 alleging that the Defendant had been given the property in question on rent one year ago for a period of 2 months, however, the Plaintiff never produced any agreement in this regard. It is further stated that the Plaintiff preferred other false and frivolous complaint before the said police station on 21.12.2013 alleging that the Defendant had broken the locks of the property in question in an illegal manner and had committed theft of valuable articles from the property in question. It is submitted that the Defendant having no other option filed a complaint dated 23.11.2013 in PS Sangam Vihar, New Delhi narrating the true facts and circumstances of present disputes. It is further stated that the SHO, Sangam Vihar in order to maintain peace and tranquility prepared a kalandra u/s 145 CrPC and presented the same before SDM Kalkaji for adjudication and the order of Ld. SDM dated 17.11.2014 came in favor of Plaintiff against which the Defendant preferred a revision petition before Ld. ASJ Saket. The Defendant also instituted the civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction. It is stated the Plaintiff has concealed material facts of receiving handsome amount from the Defendant against the suit property. It is submitted by the Defendant had not committed any act which would come within the purview of defamation and the present suit was nothing but a pressurizing tactic adopted by the Plaintiff to cow down the Defendant not to raise any claim over the suit CS/7081/16 Page 6 of 17 property for which the Defendant has already pay Rs. 5,45,000/-. It is stated that the present suit be dismissed with exemplary cost.
4. The Plaintiff filed replication to the written statement wherein the contentions of the written statement were traversed and the averments of the plaint were reaffirmed.
5. From the pleadings of parties, the following issues were framed on 19.07.2016 by the learned Predecessor, namely:-
1.Whether the Defendant made defamatory statement against the Plaintiff in the complaint dated 23.11.2013 Mark "P1"? OPP
2.Whether the statement made by the Defendant against the Plaintiff was published? OPP
3.Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to any relief.
6. At the stage of Plaintiff evidence, the Plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A), and also produced the following documents namely:
(i) Photocopy of General Power of Attorney dated 16.04.2004 is Mark A.
(ii) Photocopy of Agreement to Sell and Purchase, Will, Affidavit, Receipt, Possession Letter are Mark B (Colly).
(iii) Photocopies of BSES Bills and receipts for the year 2013 and 2014 are Mark C (Colly).
(iv) Photocopies of BSES bills and receipt for the year 2004-2005 are Mark D (Colly).
(v) Photocopies of LPG Bills are Mark E (Colly).
CS/7081/16 Page 7 of 17
(vi) Certified copy of the complaint dated 26.10.2013 is Ex. P.1.
(vii) Certified copy of the complaint dated 21.11.2013 is Ex. P.2.
(viii) Certified copy of the complaint dated 23.11.2013 is ex. P.3.
(ix) True english translation of the complaint dated 23.11.2013 is Mark F.
(x) Certified copy of the order dated 17.11.2014 is Ex. P.4.
(xi) Certified copy of the Status report dated 20.12.2014 is Ex. P.5.
(xii) Copy of the reply dated 06.09.2014 received on 10.09.2014 is Mark G.
(xiii) Legal notice dated 22.09.2014 is ex. P.6.
(xiv) Photocopy of the forensic report is Mark H (colly).
(xv) Certified copies of the order dated 18.12.2014 and 20.12.2014 are ex. P.7 (colly).
(xvi) Certified copy of the revision petition is ex. P.8 (colly). (xvii) Photocopies of the two receipts dated20.02.2013 filed in two different courts are Mark I (colly).
During his cross-examination, PW-1 admitted that the Defendant had taken one room in his suit property on rent and there was no rent agreement executed between him and the Defendant. He further admitted that he had the original title documents of the above property in his favor. He denied the suggestion that while shifting to Pushp Vihar, he had taken on his belongings and added that there was certain articles kept in the said property. He admitted that the property was in dilapidated condition and there was seepage in the walls. He stated that the rent amount of the said property given to the Defendant was Rs. 600/- per month. He denied the suggestion that there was no landlord relationship between him and the Defendant for the reason that the same was mortgaged by the him to the CS/7081/16 Page 8 of 17 Defendant. He denied the suggestion that he had not kept any articles as stated by him in the complaint dated 21.11.2013 and he further stated that he did not remember as to who all informed him about the trespass by the Defendant with respect to third floor of the suit property as stated in para 9 of the affidavit Ex. PW1/A. During his cross-examination conducted on 09.10.2018, PW-1 stated that he had not brought the original title document of the said property and further stated that the contents of this complaint dated 26.10.2013 Ex. P1 were correct and the same are a matter of record. He denied the suggestion that his complaint dated 21.11.2013, Ex. P.2 were false. He further denied the suggestion that he had given the English translation of the complaint dated 23.11.2013 Ex. P.3 and Mark F. He denied the suggestion that the Defendant had paid a sum of Rs. 5,45,000/- in installments between the period 2005-2012. He further denied the suggestion that he had entered into an agreement to sell with the Defendant dated 20.02.2013 and the said agreement to sell dated 20.02.2013 was a false and fabricated document and he had taken appropriate steps by filing appropriate proceedings before the concerned court. He stated that he did not remember the name of police official who told him about the complaint filed by the Defendant and admitted that the knowledge of lodging of complaint was given to him by police in the presence of other people. He stated he did not remember the names of other people. He further stated during his cross-examination that he had never seen any problem of white spots (skin problem) and he had never seen any illicit relationship. He stated the copy of complaint Ex. P.3 was a certified copy obtained from the court. He further stated that he never told the Defendant that he had been threatened by any woman about being impleaded in a false case and voluntary added he never received such a threat. He denied the suggestion CS/7081/16 Page 9 of 17 that any recording was ever provided by him to the Defendant or the same was played by him to the Defendant.
7. The statement of Defendant was recorded by Ld. Predecessor of this Court when he stated that the original receipt dated 20.02.2013 relied upon him in his written statement was not available with him and as on 12.02.2014, the original receipt was snatched by the Plaintiff and his associates including one lady from the hands of his wife.
8. PW-2 is HC Devraj, PS Sangam Vihar. He stated that he has brought the summoned record .i.e. DD entry of complaint dated 23.11.2013 vide DD No. 43 B filed by the Defendant against the Plaintiff and the copy of the same Ex.PW-2/A (OSR). He also brought DD No. 38 B dated 26.10.2013 and DD No. 83 B Dated 21.11.2013, copy of which were Ex.PW-2/B and Ex.PW-2/C(OSR). He stated that the record pertaining to the complaint dated 23.11.2013 lodged vide DD No. 43 B, complaint dated 26.10.2013 lodged by DD No. 38 B and complaint dated 21.11.2013 lodged vide DD No. 83 B were available with the Reader of SHO PS Sangam Vihar. This witness was not cross-examined by the Defendant.
9. PW-3 is Anil Kumar Singh, Junior Assistant, Sub Registrat-VII, Vikas Sadan, Delhi. He stated that he had brought the summoned record .i.e. GPA Dated 16.04.2004 registered as no. 540 in additional book no. 4, Vol No. 1062, of pages 16 to 18 in respect of property bearing no. D-1- C/843 and Will dated 16.04.2004 registered as No. 432 in additional book III Vol. No. 430 of Pages 130-131 in respect of property bearing no. D-1- C/843, copy of which Ex.PW-3/A and Ex.PW-3/B. He was cross-examined CS/7081/16 Page 10 of 17 by Ld. Counsel for Defendant wherein he has admitted that as per their record, the property bearing no. D-1-C/843 was registered as No. 540 and No. 432 and not bearing no. D-1-C/893.
10. PW-4 is HC Rakesh Kumar PS Sangam Vihar, South District, who stated that the summoned record had been weeded out and therefore, could not be produced. He stated that the order of weeding out of the record is Ex.PW-4/A.
11. Thereafter Plaintiff evidence was closed.
12. Thereafter the matter was fixed for Defence Evidence and after giving various opportunities to the Defendant to lead Defence Evidence. Thereafter, Defence Evidence was closed.
13. An application was moved for recalled of PW-1 as well as for leading Defence Evidence again, which was dismissed.
14. I have heard arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
15. My issue-wise findings are as follows:-
ISSUE NO.1 and 21 Whether the Defendant made defamatory statement against the Plaintiff in the complaint dated 23.11.2013 Mark "P1"? OPP
2. Whether the statement made by the Defendant against the Plaintiff CS/7081/16 Page 11 of 17 was published? OPP Onus qua these issues was placed on the Plaintiff. These issues are taken up together being interconnected.
15.1. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it is relevant to understand the meaning of defamation As per Ramanatha Iyer's Law Lexicon, II Edition, 2007 'Defamation' is a false publication, calculated to bring one in disrepute; an intentional false communication, either published or publicly spoken, that injures another's reputation, scorn or contempt in a respectable and considerable part of the community, which may be criminal as well as civil, which includes both libel and slander.
15.2. In Black's Law Dictionary, referring McGowen v. Prentice, La. App. 341 S. 23, 55, 57, it has been defined that 'Defamation' is that which tends to injure reputation; to diminish the esteem, respect, goodwill or confidence in which the Plaintiff has held, or to excite adverse, derogatory or unpleasant feelings or opinions against him and statement, which exposes person to contempt, hatred, ridicule or obloquy.
15.3. As per Purshottam v. Prem Shanker, reported in AIR 1966 ALL 377, 'Defamation' in law includes Criminal and Civil, in considering its scope, as per Articles 19 (2) and 21 of the Constitution.
15.4. Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) gives the definition for defamation, which reads as follows: "Whoever, by words wither spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or CS/7081/16 Page 12 of 17 publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person."
15.5. As per Section 499 IPC, whoever by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, knowingly or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of the other person, that would come under the purview of defamation and exceptions are also stipulated therein. As per first exception to Section 499 IPC, imputation of truth or statement made or published for public good cannot be construed as defamation. It is not in dispute that Section 500 IPC deals with punishment for committing an offence of defamation.
15.6. Further, the wrong of defamation may be committed either by way of writing, or its equivalent, or by way of speech. The term 'libel' is used for the former kind of utterances, 'slander' for the latter. Libel is a written, and slander is a spoken, defamation. A libel is a publication of a false and defamatory statement tending to injure the reputation of another person without lawful justification or excuse. The statement must be expressed in some permanent form, e.g. Writing, printing, pictures, statute, waxwork effigy, etc. 15.7 It is undisputed preposition of law that for any act of defamation, two types of remedies are available one is civil and other is criminal, however, in so far as criminal remedy is concerned, the defamation can be either libel CS/7081/16 Page 13 of 17 or slander or both. To constitute a libel the following essential elements must be proved by the Plaintiff:-
1. There must be a statement in writing;
2. The statement was published;
3. The statement was defamatory and caused you injury;
4. The statement was false; and
5. The statement did not fall into a privileged category 15.8. All the above mentioned essential of tort of defamation are required to be proved by the Plaintiff in a suit like the present one for recovery of damages for defamation. If even one of these essentials is not proved then the defamation cannot be said to have been done.
15.9. In the present case, admittedly the Defendant made the impugned complaint Ex.P3 to SHO PS Sangam Vihar. What comes up for consideration is whether the complaint of an individual against another person, further seeking redressal in the same complaint, would qualify as 'publication' which is an essential of civil defamation. No evidence has been lead by the Plaintiff that the Defendant has circulated or shared the complaint Ex.P3, with other members of public. No member of the public has also been examined by Plaintiff to corroborate or prove that the impugned complaint, Ex.P3 was circulated or made known to other members of the public. In this scenario, it cannot be said that this instant case would fall within the domain and meaning of 'publication' as on evidence has been placed on record to show that the said complaint was communicated to any other person.CS/7081/16 Page 14 of 17
15.10. In the present case, it is alleged by the Plaintiff that the Defendant engaged himself in defamation of Plaintiff by filing complaint Ex.P3. The controversy in the present suit germinated out of this complaint Ex.P3, which was written by the Defendant to the SHO PS Sangam Vihar on 23.11.2013. The Plaintiff had also filed two complaints against the Defendant, one was dated 26.10.2014 Ex.P1 and second dated 21.11.2013 Ex.P2. While the Plaintiff asserts that he is the owner of the suit property and had leased out two rooms of the same to the Defendant. In the Written statement filed on behalf of the Defendant, it has been stated that the had paid to the Plaintiff Rs. 5,45,000/- as consideration for purchasing of the suit property for which the Plaintiff was supposed to execute a sale agreement in his favour, which the Plaintiff did not do and in turn a dispute arose between the parties. The Plaintiff has examined apart from himself, three official witnesses, to prove the registration of complaint and the ownership of the suit property. It is also evident from the evidence adduced by the Plaintiff, which constitute self serving statement of PW1, it does not disclose or attribute any defamatory intent to the Defendant. No independent witness has been examined by the Plaintiff to exhibit that there was any disrepute caused to the Plaintiff because of filing of the impugned complaint by the Plaintiff.
15.11. Reference is also made to the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Professor Imtiaz Ahmad Vs. Durdana Zamir, (2009) 109 DRJ 357, wherein it was held that;-"whenever a person makes a complaint against someone to the lawful authorities and in that complaint, he makes imputations against the person complained of, it cannot be considered that the person has publicized or publicly made defamatory avernments against CS/7081/16 Page 15 of 17 a person". As already reiterated above, in the present case, the Plaintiff has not named a single person who changed his opinion about him after filing of complaint by Defendant.
15.12 It is settled law that Plaintiff has to stand on his own legs, not on the legs of others. The Plaintiff has to prove his own case by adducing oral and or documentary evidence and proving the same. In the instant suit, Plaintiff has miserably failed to stand on his case and even failed to prove his allegations and claims.
15.13. Furthermore, on the careful perusal of the evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW-1/A, there is no submission, which could show that the reputation of the Plaintiff was damaged in public eye to an extent which required compensation in monetary format. No independent witness has been examined and no documentary evidence has been lead during trial to show that there was loss of reputation of Plaintiff in the eyes of public or there was of disrepute caused to him after the filing of the impugned complaint Ex.P3. There is no whisper as to whether this document which was filed with the concerned SHO was circulated in public and even the concerned official of PS Sangam Vihar, who had been examined during Plaintiff evidence, has not whispered a single thing as to whether the impugned complaint Ex.P3 damaged the reputation of the Plaintiff qua them or in the public eye. The Plaintiff has failed to establish its case that Defendant had committed wrong of defamation and since Plaintiff could not substantiate its claim, therefore, the Plaintiff is not entitled to any damage.
Accordingly both these issues are decided against the Plaintiff.
CS/7081/16 Page 16 of 17Relief
16. In view of findings on issue no. 1 and 2, the Plaintiff has failed to establish its case and accordingly, the suit stands dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room.
Pronounced in the Open Court ( Gurmohina Kaur)
on 13.05.2022 Additional District Judge-03
South District: Saket: New Delhi
CS/7081/16 Page 17 of 17