Delhi District Court
Smt Sunita Goyal vs Sh. Ramesh Chand Gupta on 4 April, 2007
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH KAPOOR, ADDL. DISTRICT
JUDGE; DELHI.
SUIT NO. 162/03
Smt Sunita Goyal
w/o Sh. Om Parkash Goyal,
r/o H.No. 129, Pocket D-12,
Sector-8, Rohini,
Delhi-110085
.........Plaintiff.
Versus
Sh. Ramesh Chand Gupta
s/o Ganga Ram,
r/o H.No. A-3/174 (First Floor)
Sector-5, Rohini,
Delhi-110085.
..............Defendant.
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking to recover a sum of Rs. 19,50,000/- as compensation for libel.
Brief facts as alleged in the plaint are as under:-
The plaintiff is a married lady 44 years of age and has four children. The defendant is a property dealer who is running his office on the ground floor of house No. 130, Pocket-D12, Sector-8, Rohini, Delhi-85. The plaintiff is running a boutique under the name and style of "M/s Megha The Boutique" on the first floor of the said property. The husband of the plaintiff is also a property dealer by profession.
It is alleged by the plaintiff that on 4.1.2004 the defendant made a defamatory statement in open public while making a statement to the police. The said statement made to the police by the defendant is Annexure-A. At the bottom of the statement there is one sentence in vernacular which reads as follows:-
"YEH AURAT SUNITA PATA UPROKAT KHUD HI GALAT KISAM KI AURAT HAI"
It is alleged by the plaintiff that the aforesaid statement has assassinated her character , reputation and honour.
It is alleged that prior to this incident, the parties were involved in a quarrel. The genesis of the said quarrel started when the plaintiff purchased the first floor of the aforesaid house wherein the defendant was running his 2 property dealing business at the ground floor. The plaintiff removed the sign boards of the defendant from the first floor. It is this act of the plaintiff which had infuriated the defendant and other shopkeepers. Amongst the shopkeepers is one Sh. Satish Kumar who is the SADDHU (husband of the defendant's wife's sister) including others, namely, one Sh. Ramesh Chand Jain and Sh. Subh Karan Gupta. After the removal of the sign boards Sh. Ramesh Chand Jain who was running his property dealing business under the name and style of M/s Tayal Properties and Sh. Shubh Karan Gupta (C.A.) initiated multifarious litigations against the plaintiff. It is alleged that on 3.1.2000 at 9.00 p.m. Shubh Karan Gupta, Ramesh Chand Jain and their accomplices assaulted and attacked the plaintiff for which the police had registered a case U/s 354/323/34 IPC vide FIR No. 15/2000 P.S. Rohini which is still pending disposal. On the next day i.e. on 4th January, 2000 she was again assaulted, following which the police intervened, recorded the statement as well as the statement of her husband and two sons. The police also recorded the statement of the opposite party including the statement in question which was made by the defendant. It is alleged that when the I. O. was recording the said statement there was a huge crowd of about 50/60 people on the spot including the customers of the plaintiff present at her boutique. Later on police submitted a "KALANDRA" (case) U/s 107/150 Cr.P.C. before the Spl. Executive Magistrate , North West District, Ashok Vihar, Delhi to maintain peace. It is averred by the plaintiff that the said statement of the defendant in the above said proceedings have now become a part of public record., certified copy of which can be obtained by any member of the society as the said record is open to the general public.
It is the allegation of the plaintiff that the said statement is false, without just excuse and calculated to injure her good reputation by exposing her to hatred, ridicule and contempt. It is alleged that the said statement was given by the defendant merely to please his relatives and because of their enmity with the plaintiff. The plaintiff served a legal notice dated 2.11.2000 through registered A.D. and UPC asking the defendant for a full and unqualified apology in writing and for damages. In his reply to the notice the defendant refused to apologize and asserted that his tortious and slanderous act was correct. The defendant also issued a legal notice dated 3.1.2001 to the plaintiff which is alleged to be absurd.
3The plaintiff has assessed the damages caused on account of the said defamatory statement in the following manner:-
(a) Rs.25,00,000/- in respect of her loss of reputation and credit
(b) Rs.25,00,000/- in respect of loss to her business and mental agony But the plaintiff has restricted her claim to (a) Rs.10,00,000/- on account of loss of reputation and credit (b) Rs.9,50,000/-on account of loss to her business and mental agony. The plaintiff has thus claimed a compensation of Rs.19,50,000/-.
The defendant has contested the suit and has filed a written statement. In the preliminary objections, it is said that since the trial was still under progress, therefore, the suit is premature. It is further stated that the said statement was given in response to questions put by the police, as such the defendant was duty bound to answer them. The statement is bona fide and was not meant to injure the feelings of the plaintiff. It is claimed that the plaint discloses no cause of action and is liable to be rejected. It is further claimed that the plaintiff has deliberately misrepresented the said statement in order to pressurize the defendant so that he is prevented from telling the truth to the criminal court about the aforesaid incident. The alleged statement by the defendant has been translated by the defendant himself in English as "the plaintiff herself is of wrong , (quarrelsome) temperament".
In reply on merits, it has been said that the plaintiff has filed numerous criminal cases and civil suits against many persons, namely, Sh. Harish Kawatra, Sh. Anil Kumar Sh. Devender Popli Sh. Laxmi Jain and Sh. Ramesh Chand Jain. It is stated that in a case titled S.K. Gupta & Another Vs. Om Parkash and others, a local commissioner had stated in his report that the plaintiff had abused in a very filthy language to all the persons present on the spot, hence nobody came forward to give evidence in this regard. The said record has been filed as annexure-DA. The defendant has denied that he ever had any professional jealousy , ill-will against the plaintiff. It is stated that the said statement in question is neither false, nor defamatory. It is also stated that the said statement was not made in open public . It has been denied that the statement contained filthy comments about the honour and character of the plaintiff or aimed to be declared in open public. The defendant avers that the plaintiff has misrepresented and mistranslated the statement in question. It has 4 further been stated that the plaintiff before the special executive magistrate had made a statement to the effect that a case U/s 354/323 IPC has been registered against the defendant and that the defendant gave the said statement for getting the said case withdrawn. This statement of the plaintiff is false as no such case was ever registered against the defendant at any point of time. The defendant has denied that the plaintiff was assaulted by him or any of his accomplices. It is admitted that FIR No 15/2000 dated 7.1.2000 was registered but it has been denied that there were 50/60 persons when the IO had recorded the statement in question. It is reiterated that the statement was not intended to injure the feelings of the plaintiff but merely to give the correct answer to the questions put by the police.
The plaintiff has filed a replication to the written statement of the defendant wherein she has controverted with and denied the allegations made in the written statement and has reaffirmed those made in the plaint.
On the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed:-
i. Whether the plaint does not disclose any cause of action and is liable to be rejected U/o 7 rule 11 CPC? OPD. ii. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed U/o 7 rule 7 and 8 of CPC ? OPD.
iii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for Rs.19,50,000/- as prayed for?
iv. Relief.
In order to prove their case both the parties led their evidence. Plaintiff examined herself as PW 1. The defendant examined DW 1 H.C. Prakash Pradhan who has brought the complaint register. The defendant has examined himself as DW 2.
I have heard arguments advanced at the bar. I have gone through the evidence led on record and the documents reliance on which has been placed by the parties. My findings on issues are as under:-
Issue No.1:-
In the present case, the defendant had made a statement to the police during the course of investigation of a Kalandra U/s 107/150 Cr.p.c. It is alleged by the plaintiff that the statement was made in the presence of 40/50 persons. It is alleged that the statement had lowered the reputation of the plaintiff in the eyes of others. As already stated, "reputation" is the estimation in which a person is held by others. A man's own estimation of himself is not 5 his "reputation". An attack on the reputation of a person will only follow when the words calculated to harm his reputation are communicated to some third party i.e to some person other than the person defamed and the said other person believes the communication as a result of which the estimation of the victim is lowered in his eyes. The plaintiff, however, has not produced even a single witness from amongst those present to prove that they had believed in the statement made by the defendant as a result of which their estimation of the plaintiff in their eyes had been lowered. In order to prove defamation, it was obligatory on the part of the plaintiff to have proved not only publication but also the fact that the effect of publication had resulted in lowering her reputation in the eyes of others. Since the plaintiff has failed to do so, she has failed to prove the necessary ingredients of defamation.
The matter can be looked into from a different perspective. It has to be seen as to whether the statement made to the police during the course of investigation of a criminal case can be made the basis of a suit for libel. It is pertinent to point out that there is no Statute dealing with law of defamation in Civil cases in India. In this context it is relevant to note the following judgments :-
In 1995 (32) DRJ 246 Shri Bhartu Vs. Indian Express Newspapers & Ors, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jaspal Singh explored the definition of defamation as applicable to Civil cases and observed as follows:-
"What is defamation? The classic definition is that of Parke B in Parmiter v. Coupland (1840) 6 M & W 105 at 108, where he said:
"A publication ... which is calculated to injure the reputation of another by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule."
However, this definition has not been considered to be sufficient. In Tornier V. National Provincial and Union Bank of England (1924) 1 KB 461 Semtton LJ said:
"I do not myself think this ancient formula is sufficient in all cases, for words may damage the reputation of a man as a business man, which no one would connect with hatred ridicule or contempt."
Lord Atkin too, not only in Tornier's case (supra) but in Sim V. Stretch (1936) 2 All ER 1237, also expressed the view that the definition of Parket B seemed to be too narrow.
The Faulks Committee in their report have recommended 6 that for purposes of civil cases the following definition of defamation may be adopted:
"Defamation shall consist of publication to a third party of matter which in all the circumstances would be likely to affect a person adversely in the estimation of reasonable people generally."
I confess, I feel more drawn to it and would heartily accept it with just one reservation. It appears to me to be unnecessary for the plaintiff to prove that a defamatory interpretation would be placed in the minds of all reasonable people. To me, it would suffice if some appreciable section of reasonable reader would do so. I tend to agree, with respect, with what holmes J. observed in the judgment of the U.S.Supreme Court in Peck V. Tribune Co. (1909) 214 US 185. The case related to an advertisement depicting the plaintiff commending a brand of whisky. Holmes, J. said:
"If the advertisement obviously would hurt the plaintiff in the estimation of an important and respectable part of the community liability is not a question of majority vote."
His Lordship had also observed that "reputation is the estimation in which a person is held by others. A man's estimation of himself is not his reputation".
In AIR 1940 Nagpur 125 Brijlal Prasad Ramcharan Sharma Vs. Mahanat Laldas uru Gautamdas Bairagee, the Court relied upon AIR 193 Nagpur 47 Manmohan Singh Vs. Bishisingh and AIR 1918 All 69 Chunni Lal Vs. Narsingh Das and held:-
" The statements made in the written complaint have been found to be false, but in a civil action for damages for defamation in respect of such statements there can be no doubt that the defendant is in a privileged position, as found in both the Courts below and as held by me in 29 N L R 24, and also by the Allahabad High Court in 40 All 341."
In AIR 1961 Patna 164 Pandey Surendra Nath Sinha Vs. Bageshwari Pd it was held:-
"If the person who makes the statement has an interest or duty legal, social or moral to make it to the person to whom it is made, and the person to whom it is so made has a corresponding interest or duty to receive it such statement commands a privilege and cannot be made the basis of an action for defamation."7
In (1891) 2 Q. B. 354 Stuart Vs. Bell and (1943) 1 All E.R. 326 (C.A.) Smythson Vs. Cramp, the Court held:-
"The occasion is privileged where the defendant has an interest in making the communication to the third person, and the third person has corresponding interest in receiving it. Reciprocity of interest is essential. In Sullivan's Law of defamation of page 80 learned author has referred to the case of Hebditch Vs. Mallwaine, (1894) 2 Q.B. 54 wherein it was observed that the interest must exist in the party to whom the communication is made as well as in the party making it.
It is sufficient that the defendants honestly and reasonably believe that the person to whom he made communication had an interest in the subject matter thereof.
Hines Vs. Davidson, AIR 1935 S.C. 30 at P.37, if one party to the litigation communicates to the opposite party of an alleged interference with the course of justice it is a privilege occasion because it is in the interest of every litigant and common interest of both the parties to the litigation that there should be no interference with the course of justice."
In AIR 1929 Allahabad 972 Ali Mohammad Vs. Manna Lal an application containing alleged defamatory material was filed in a judicial proceeding, the court held:-
"The application being made in a judicial proceeding the occasion on which the statement was made was absolutely privileged:
In AIR 1985 Kerala 233 K. Daniel Vs. T. Hymavathy Amma the Court recognized the principle that statements made in course of judicial proceedings are absolutely privileged. It held:-
"The common law rule of absolute privilege in a civil action for slander in regard to statements made in the course of judicial proceedings has been followed by courts in India."
The cumulative effect of all the aforesaid judgments would mean that no civil action for damages can be taken by the plaintiff against the defendant merely on the basis of the statement made to the police during the course of investigation. The statement was made in the course of judicial proceedings. It was also made to a person in authority in answer to questions put to the defendant. The statement is privileged and cannot form the basis of a suit for libel. Issue No.1 is accordingly decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
8Issue No.2:-
This issue has not been pressed by the defendant and is accordingly decided against him.
Issue No.3:-
In view of my findings on issues above, I hold that the plaintiff has failed to prove the case. Consequently, the suit fails and is hereby dismissed . File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT TODAY i.e.4.4.2007 (RAKESH KAPOOR) Addl. District Judge, Delhi.