Delhi District Court
Nasim vs Rabbo on 25 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHITOSH PRATAP SIGNH RATHORE
DISTIRCT JUDGE-04, SOUTH DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Suit No.:CS DJ 1003/17
CNR No.:DLST 01-009023-2017
In the matter of :
Nasim
S/o Mr. Nawabuddin
R/o H.No.221
Hauz Rani, Malviya Nagar
New Delhi-110017. .......Plaintiff.
Versus
Rabbo
D/o Shammi
R/o H.No.197
Hauz Rani, Malviya Nagar
New Delhi-110017. ........Defendant.
Date of Institution :17.11.2017
Arguments concluded on :05.08.2025
Date of Judgment :25.08.2025
SUIT FOR CLAIM RS.10,00,000/- FOR DEFAMATION
DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
BY THE DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
1. Present suit has been filed for Rs.10,00,000/- for defamation and damages arising out of the alleged malicious prosecution by the defendant.
CS DJ 1003/17 Nasim vs Rabbo Page 1 of 19FACTS The case of the plaintiff as per plaint is as following:
Plaintiff and defendant are residing in the same street as neighbors. Upon the complaint of defendant Rabbo, a false FIR No.1559/15 was registered in the PS Malviya Nagar under Section 354D/323/509/34 IPC to falsely implicate the plaintiff Nasim and his both sons namely Shahrukh and Danish to satisfy her and her family's personal vengeance due to the previous enmity between both the families and also to execute the conspiracy of the 'building mafia' of the area. Ld. MM-03, Mahila Court, South District, Saket Court vide its judgment dated 30.05.2017 held that plaintiff Nasim, Shahrukh and Danish were falsely implicated by the complainant Rabbo in the aforesaid FIR No.1559/15 dated 13.08.2015 and plaintiff and his both sons Shahrukh and Danish were acquitted of the offences in the aforesaid FIR. An explanation from the IO through DCP was called by the Ld. Court and action taken against the IO was also to be reported to the court.
Plaintiff and his both sons namely Shahrukh, Danish and the family of plaintiff have suffered irreparable loss, injury and defamation in the society. The plaintiff and his both sons namely Shahrukh, Danish were subjected to needless humiliation and disgrace in the society by the acts of the defendant, more particularly this malicious litigation forced upon them. The reputation of the plaintiff and his family was tarnished and their status in the society was sullied. Their reputation was dented by the wanton act of inflicting baseless, false and frivolous allegations in the said FIR and CS DJ 1003/17 Nasim vs Rabbo Page 2 of 19 consequent litigation. The single object of the defendant was to harass and humiliate the plaintiff in the eyes of the community, their family, friends, relatives, well-wishers and others that the plaintiff were criminals and persons of bad character and threat to the society.
Plaintiff had to engage the service of advocates to defend themselves and spend huge amounts over the said litigation. Plaintiff has suffered immensely and continues to suffer. Plaintiff's sons Shahrukh and Danish had applied for a job for the post of Conductor in Delhi Transport Department and the names of Shahrukh and Danish were finalized by Delhi Transport Department that was communicated vide letters bearing no.55883 and 55882, both dated 11.02.2016. Plaintiff's both sons Shahrukh and Danish were provided necessary training for First Aid for seven days from Red Cross Ambulance Society, Sujan Singh Park, New Delhi and one day final training & oral test from IDTR (Institute of Driving Training and Research) Sarai Kale Khan New Delhi. Thereafter, the Transport Authority dispatched the files of plaintiff's both sons for police verification to PS Malviya Nagar. However, due to the pendency of investigation in abovesaid FIR No.1559/15 in PS Malviya Nagar, plaintiff's sons Shahrukh and Danish could not get that Govt. job.
The father of the defendant was hand in glove with the local builder mafia. The builder mafias were carrying out unauthorized construction to which plaintiff had objected and a dispute had arisen. Defendant's father was arrested in case FIR No.77/2012 as he had severely beaten plaintiff's CS DJ 1003/17 Nasim vs Rabbo Page 3 of 19 son Danish. Due to the said animosity, the defendant Rabbo filed a false FIR No.1559/15 against the plaintiff and his both sons. Plaintiff and his both sons have suffered "emotional, mental and physical damage" due to the reckless and malicious acts of the defendant. Besides this, the plaintiff had spent money for advocate fees, conveyance to the courts on various dates.
WRITTEN STATEMENT
2. Written statement was filed by the defendant in which defendant had taken a preliminary objection that no cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. There is no fault on the part of defendant and she had proved her complaint on the record verbatim. It is stated that it is the defendant who is victim at the hands of the plaintiff and his associates who committed sexual assault on the defendant. Present suit is nothing but a counter blast, as several matters / litigations are pending against the plaintiff and his associates.
In parawise reply, the averments made in the plaint have been denied. It is stated that the aforesaid FIR No.1559/15 is based on truth and no false, frivolous or fabricated allegations have been made against the plaintiff or his associates. The defendant has no concern with any 'building mafia' of the area. Plaintiff and his associates were acquitted by giving benefit of doubt in the said FIR as prosecution allegedly could not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. It is stated that by the acts of the plaintiff and his associates, the reputation of the defendant was affected and CS DJ 1003/17 Nasim vs Rabbo Page 4 of 19 she is still a victim of the plaintiff and his associates.
It is stated that plaintiff and his family members quarreled with the family members of the defendant and a cross case was registered, which was later compromised and both the cross FIRs got quashed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. It is stated that the defendant has not done any malicious act either against the plaintiff or his sons Shahrukh and Danish. Neither plaintiff nor his sons suffered any mental agony.
RE-JOINDER
3. Re-joinder to written statement was filed on behalf of plaintiff in which most of the contents of the written statement were denied and that of the plaint were reiterated.
ISSUES
4. On the basis of pleadings of parties, following issues were framed on 16.03.2019:
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs only)?OPP (2) Relief.
EVIDENCE
5. Plaintiff in support of his case has examined himself as PW1. PW1 has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/1. He has relied upon the following documents:
CS DJ 1003/17 Nasim vs Rabbo Page 5 of 191.Certified Copy of judgment dated 30.05.2017 in case FIR No.1559/2015, PS Malviya Nagar, titled as 'State vs Naseem & Others', Ex.PW1/A;
2. Copy of Receipts bearing No.55883 and 55882 issued by Transport Department are already marked as Mark A & C(Same are wrongly mentioned as Mark A & B in evidence affidavit);
3. Copy of SCRB Reports are already marked as Mark B & D (Same is wrongly mentioned as Mark C & D in evidence affidavit).
PW-2 Shahrukh Khan has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW2/1. He has relied upon the following documents:
1.Certified Copy of judgment dated 30.05.2017 in case FIR No.1559/2015, PS Malviya Nagar, titled as 'State vs Naseem & Others', Ex.PW2/A is de-exhibited as same is already Ex.PW1/A;
2. Copy of Certificate bearing no.SFA17096/2015-16 & BATCH No.531/33 OF First Aid Course given by St.John Ambulance Association, Red Cross Bhawan, Golf Links, New Delhi 110003 is Ex.PW2/B (OS&R).
3. Copy of Certificate issued by Institute of Driving and Traffic Research, Adjoining ISBT, Sarai Kale Khan, Ring Road, New Delhi vide certificate no.2RCL/0026695 is Ex.PW2/C (OS&R).
4. Copy of Receipts bearing No.55883 /11.02.2016 issued by Transport Department, South Zone, Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi bearing signatures at Point C. Same is Mark A
3. Copy of Previous Conviction/Involvement report (SCRB), Delhi in case FIR No.1559/2015 and FIR No.1536/15, PS Malviya Nagar is Mark B. PW-3 Mohd. Danish has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit, which is Ex.PW3/1. He has relied upon the following documents:
1.Certified Copy of judgment dated 30.05.2017 in case FIR CS DJ 1003/17 Nasim vs Rabbo Page 6 of 19 No.1559/2015, PS Malviya Nagar, titled as 'State vs Naseem & Others', Ex.PW3/A is de-exhibited as same is already Ex.PW1/A;
2. Copy of Certificate baring no.SFA17095/2015-16 & Batch No.531/33 OF First Aid Course given by St.John Ambulance Association, Red Cross Bhawan, Golf Links, New Delhi 110003 is Ex.PW3/B (OS&R).
3. Copy of Certificate issued by Institute of Driving and Traffic Research, Adjoining ISBT, Sarai Kale Khan, Ring Road, New Delhi vide certificate no.2RCL/0026694 is Ex.PW3/C (OS&R).
4. Copy of Receipts bearing No.55882/11.02.2016 issued by Transport Department, South Zone, Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi bearing signatures at Point C. Same is Mark A
3. Copy of Previous Conviction/Involvement report (SCRB), Delhi in case FIR No.1559/2015 and FIR No.1536/15, PS Malviya Nagar is Mark D. PW-4 Ms. Mukesh Bala, Sr. Judicial Assistant, Record Room (Criminal), South District, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi is a summoned witness. PW-4 has proved the certified copy of the judgment dated 30.05.2017 in case FIR No.1559/2015, PS Malviya Nagar, under Section 354/323/509/34 IPC, 'State vs Nasim & Ors', as Ex.PW1/A. PW-5 Sanjay Kumar, Deputy Manager, Institute of Driving & Traffic Reasearch, Sarai Kale Khan, Delhi is a summoned witness. He has proved certificates bearing Sl.No. 2RCL/0026694 and Sl.No.2RCL/0026695 already Ex.PW3/C and Ex.PW2/C. He deposed that the said certificates were issued to Danish (PW3) and Shahrukh (PW2). He has also proved the list of candidates which shows that name of Danish and Shahrukh Khan as Ex.PW5/A. CS DJ 1003/17 Nasim vs Rabbo Page 7 of 19 PW-6 Sh. Radha Nandan, Assistant, St. John Ambulance Association, Delhi Centre, Red Cross Bhawan, Golf Links, New Delhi 110003 is a summoned witness. He has brought the record of Certificate No. SJAA/Trg.Wing/DRC/SFA 17096/2015-2016 issued to Shahrukh Khan vide Batch No.531 and Certificate No.SJAA/Trg.Wind/DRC/SFA 17095/2015-2016 issued to Md. Danish vide Batch No.531, which are already exhibited as Ex.PW2/B (OSR) and Ex.PW3/B (OSR), respectively.
PW-7 HC Kanhaiya, No.2268/SD, PS Malviya Nagar, South District, New Delhi is a summoned witness. He has proved the copy of FIR No.1559/2015, under Section 323/354/509/34 IPC 'State vs Naseem & Ors.' alongwith SCRB Record (Previous conviction/Involvement Report of accused Naseem Md. Danish and Shahrukh Khan as Ex.PW7/A (OSR) and Ex.PW7/B, respectively.
PW-8 Sh. Suraj, Assistant Section Officer, Sarai Kale Khan, South Zone, Transport Department, Delhi is a summoned witness. He has brought the record i.e. CD No.07544819 regarding weeding out of old records pertaining to the driving/conductor licenses alongwith circular no.F.22/05/98 TpL (O&M)/5572-99 dated 04.10.1999 issued by Special Commissioner (TpT), which is Ex.PW8/1 and Ex.PW8/2, respectively. He deposed that the receipt Mark A and Mark C are true and correct to the best of his knowledge.
Defendant in support of her case has examined herself as DW1.
CS DJ 1003/17 Nasim vs Rabbo Page 8 of 19DW1 has tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW1/A.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
FINDING ON ISSUES
7. My Issue-wise findings are as follows:
ISSUE NO.1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs only)?OPP Plaintiff to prove his case has examined himself as PW1. In his examination in chief he has reiterated the contents of the plaint. He has stated that a false FIR No.1559/15 was registered in PS Malviya Nagar under Section 354D/323/509/34 IPC on the complaint lodged by the defendant to implicate the plaintiff and his sons namely Shahrukh and Danish. After the trial was concluded, the plaintiff and his two sons were acquitted by the court of Ld. M.M Mahila Court (South) vide judgment dated 30.05.2017. It was categorically held by the Court that Nasim, Shahrukh, Danish were falsely implicated by the complainant Rabbo @ Sonam in the said case. The Hon'ble Court further called the explanation from the IO through DCP and action taken report.
It is stated that plaintiff and his both sons namely Shahrukh, Danish CS DJ 1003/17 Nasim vs Rabbo Page 9 of 19 and his whole family has suffered irreparable loss, injury and defamation in the society. Plaintiff and his both sons were subjected to needless humiliation and disgrace in the society. It is stated that plaintiff's sons Shahrukh and Danish could not get a Govt. job because of abovesaid FIR no.1559/15 in PS Malviya Nagar. The Delhi Transport Corporation had finalized the names of the plaintiff's sons Shahrukh and Danish for the post of conductor.
It is stated that plaintiff and his both sons have suffered emotional & mental damage due to the malicious act of the defendant for which they are entitled to be compensated. Beside, plaintiff has spent money for advocate fees and has suffered mental agony due to the case filed by defendant against them.
Plaintiff in his evidence affidavit has produced the following documents:
1.Certified Copy of judgment dated 30.05.2017 in case FIR No.1559/2015, PS Malviya Nagar, titled as 'State vs Naseem & Others', Ex.PW1/A;
2. Copy of Receipts bearing No.55883 and 55882 issued by Transport Department.
3. Copy of SCRB Reports.
Plaintiff's son Shahrukh Khan has been examined as PW2. In his evidence affidavit he has also stated that a false FIR No.1559/15 was registered in PS Malviya Nagar under Section 354D/323/509/34 IPC on the CS DJ 1003/17 Nasim vs Rabbo Page 10 of 19 complaint lodged by the defendant to implicate the plaintiff and his sons. After trial, the plaintiff and his two sons were acquitted by the court of Ld. M.M Mahila Court (South) vide judgment dated 30.05.2017. It has been categorically held by the Court that Nasim, Shahrukh, Danish were falsely implicated by the complainant Rabbo @ Sonam in the said case. The Court further called the explanation from the IO through DCP. The deponent and all family members have suffered irreparable loss and injury and defamation in the society. He further stated that deponent and his father and brother were subjected to needless humiliation and disgrace in the society by the acts of the defendant more particularly the malicious act of the defendant. It is further stated that he has suffered needless humiliation and disgrace in the society by the acts of the defendant, more particularly the malicious litigation forced upon him. Plaintiff's another son Danish has been examined as PW-3. His affidavit is on similar lines.
Perusal of the judgment whereby plaintiff and his sons were acquitted shows that the reasoning of trial court is contained from Para 8 to Para 24. The first doubtful circumstance that the trial court found in the testimony of defendant is pertaining to the Urdu tuition that she was allegedly taking at the time of incident. Trial court had proceeded to record that from the evidence, presence of complainant on the spot on the alleged date of incident is "not proved beyond reasonable doubt".
In Para 11 it is stated that the complainant in her complaint has alleged that accused Shahrukh and Danish had followed her and accused CS DJ 1003/17 Nasim vs Rabbo Page 11 of 19 Danish caught hold of her, slapped her twice and stroked her breast. Whereas in her examination in chief she has deposed that accused Shahrukh rushed towards her and pushed her on her breast. Trial court has returned a finding that "role of accused persons is also not proved beyond reasonable doubt". Some other grounds which have formed the basis of plaintiff's acquittal are:
(i) There was no explanation on record that why for four hours the complaint was not lodged.
(ii) There was discrepancy in relation to the date of incident.
(iii) Corroborative evidence was also not available.
(iv) From the testimony of complainant even date of alleged incident was not proved definitely.
(v)Complainant's testimony appears to be tainted with motive to implicate the accused persons in view of various litigations pending between the parties.
To succeed in a suit for malicious prosecution, plaintiff has to show four things:
(i)Defendant set the criminal law in motion against him.
(ii)The said proceedings terminated in favour of plaintiff.
(iii)Defendant acted without reasonable cause.
(iv)Defendant acted maliciously.
In the present case, first two ingredients are clearly satisfied. However, to show that there was malice on the part of defendant, civil CS DJ 1003/17 Nasim vs Rabbo Page 12 of 19 court has to return its own findings.
It is also a settled position of law that merely because the accused has been acquitted, he does not get a right to recover damages from the defendant for "malicious prosecution". Otherwise, in every case there is an acquittal, complainant or the prosecutor will be burdened with financial liability for malicious prosecution.
It would be pertinent to examine the meaning and purport of the word 'malice' in the context of "malicious prosecution". Malice in common parlance means ill will against the person but in the legal sense it means wrongful act done intentionally without just cause or excuse.
In "West Bengal State Electricity Board Vs. Dilip Kumar Ray 2007 SCC (14) 568", Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed as under;
Malicious prosecution -- Malice. -- Malice means an improper or indirect motive other than a desire to vindicate public justice or a private right. It need not necessarily be a feeling of enmity, spite or ill will. It may be due to a desire to obtain a collateral advantage.
The principles to be borne in mind in the case of actions for malicious prosecutions are these: -- Malice is not merely the doing of a wrongful act intentionally but it must be established that the defendant was actuated by malus animus, that is to say, by spite or ill will or any indirect or improper motive. But if the defendant had reasonable or probable cause of launching the criminal prosecution no amount CS DJ 1003/17 Nasim vs Rabbo Page 13 of 19 of malice will make him liable for damages.
Reasonable and probable cause must be such as would operate on the mind of a discreet and reasonable man; 'malice' and 'want of reasonable and probable cause,' have reference to the state of the defendant's mind at the date of the initiation of criminal proceedings and the onus rests on the plaintiff to prove them.
In "Prabodh Sagar Vs. Punjab SEB, (2000) 5 SCC 630", Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed as under;
"Incidentally, be it noted that the expression 'mala fide' is not meaningless jargon and it has its proper connotation. Malice or mala fides can only be appreciated from the records of the case in the facts of each case. There cannot possibly be any set guidelines in regard to the proof of mala fides. Mala fides, where it is alleged, depends upon its own facts and circumstances."
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "State of A.P Vs. Goverdhanlal Pitti (2003) 4 SCC 739 observed as under;
"12. The legal meaning of malice is 'ill will or spite towards a party and any indirect or improper motive in taking an action'. This is sometimes described as 'malice in fact'. 'Legal malice' or 'malice in law' means 'something done without lawful excuse'. In other words, 'it is an act done wrongfully and wilfully without reasonable or probable cause, and not necessarily an act done from ill feeling and spite. It is a deliberate act in disregard of the rights of others."CS DJ 1003/17 Nasim vs Rabbo Page 14 of 19
In the present case, defendant in her testimony before this court has clearly stated that Shahrukh, Danish and Nasim had pushed her breast at a public place and had also slapped her.
It is evident that complainant before the Ld. Trial court as well as before this court has not changed her narrative that her breast was stroked / pushed by the accused / plaintiff or his sons.
Standard of proof in criminal trial is higher than the one required in a civil suit. In a criminal trial, the standard of proof for proving any fact is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. If on the basis of material before it, the court can find no doubtful circumstance in the narrative put forward by the prosecution, onus on the prosecution is discharged.
It is also not in doubt that this higher and strict standard of proof is difficult to achieve in a trial which leads to many acquittals. Merely because, prosecution has failed to prove a fact to the point of 'beyond reasonable doubt' would not by its own force show that the defendant on his part had acted maliciously or without 'reasonable cause'. Defendant has to show that facts and circumstances did exist which gave rise to a belief in his mind that other party was guilty.
In this regard, it would be pertinent to quote the observation of Division Bench of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Major Gian Singh Vs. S.P Batra, AIR 1973 Punjab & Haryana 400":
CS DJ 1003/17 Nasim vs Rabbo Page 15 of 19"In a suit for malicious prosecution, the burden of proving that the proceedings were initiated without any reasonable and probable cause lies on the plaintiff who seeks damages. It is no doubt true that the acquittal of the plaintiff in the earlier proceedings may some times give rise to a presumption that there was no reasonable and probable cause for his prosecution but this presumption is rebuttable. The defendant in such a suit has merely to prove that the facts and circumstances did exist which gave rise to a belief in his mind that the other party was guilty. These facts and circumstances do not have to be viewed or weighed as would be done by a Court of law, for otherwise in all those cases in which the prosecution fails, the complainant or the prosecutor would become liable for damages. All the four conditions mentioned by Shri John Salmond must co-exist before a defendant in a suit for malicious prosecution can be burdened with liability. Again, in the case of such a transaction in which fraud is alleged, the person defrauded remains ignorant of all or some of the attendant circumstances of the case till a late stage. If a person could visualise or foresee what is going to happen in future, he would never become a victim of fraud.
In the present case, the material on record shows that :
(i) That the plaintiff and his sons were prosecuted on the basis of complaint filed by defendant.
(ii) Plaintiff and his sons were finally acquitted in the criminal case.
However, there is nothing on record to show that defendant acted maliciously or without reasonable cause.
Plaintiff's emphasis on the findings of trial court recorded in Para no.14 of the judgment that the complainant's testimony appears to be tainted with motive to implicate the accused persons in view of various litigations pending between the parties is also mis-placed because that finding is only for the purpose of acquittal of the accused / plaintiff. In CS DJ 1003/17 Nasim vs Rabbo Page 16 of 19 this regard, it would be pertinent to quote the observation of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Para 10 of its judgment in "Sukhwinder Singh V. Ravinder Singh 2003 AIR P & H 324:
"10. The acquittal in a criminal case or dismissal of a complaint, may or may not contain a finding that the prosecution lacks bona fide or is frivolous. Such findings are recorded only for the purpose of dismissal of the complaint or criminal prosecution. In an action for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff has to prove the necessary ingredients as mentioned above. The findings recorded in such proceedings are not binding on civil court. A civil court has to return a finding in an action for malicious prosecution in the manner mentioned above."
No evidence of previous litigation between the parties has been produced. Plaintiff has filed the suit claiming damages also on behalf of his sons. However, his sons have not been made party to the present suit although they have been examined as witnesses. No witness has been examined to show that plaintiff has been defamed. There is also no averment in the plaint with respect to the conduct of the defendant apart from the filing of the complaint which could have defamed the plaintiff. Plaintiff in his evidence affidavit has stated that he was maliciously prosecuted by the defendant and with respect to defamation, the only averment in plaint is regarding FIR and consequent litigations. There is nothing in plaint that would suggest that defendant apart from the filing of FIR also did something towards publication of the factum of the pendency of a criminal litigation against the plaintiff.
CS DJ 1003/17 Nasim vs Rabbo Page 17 of 19PW4 Mukesh Bala, Sr. Judicial Assistant, PW-5 Sanjay Kumar, Deputy Manager, Institute of Driving & Traffic Reasearch, PW-6 Sh. Radha Nandan, Assistant, St. John Ambulance Association, PW-7 HC Kanhaiya and PW-8 Sh. Suraj, Assistant Section Officer, transport Department have been examined only to prove the fact that plaintiff's sons namely, Shahrukh and Danish were offered employment for which they had undertaken some training. In absence of any proof of malice on the part of defendant, the evidence led by plaintiff cannot yield desired result.
As far as submission of the counsel for plaintiff that explanation was called from the IO is concerned, it is noteworthy that the said IO has not been made a party in the present suit. Plaintiff in his evidence affidavit has stated that defendant had filed a false and frivolous complaint against the plaintiff and his sons. However, defendant in her evidence affidavit has stated that she was the victim of the sexual assault by the plaintiff and his sons and hence she had approached the police. There is no other evidence on record to show that the act of the defendant was malicious as discussed above. The relevant judgment whereby the plaintiff was acquitted shows more about the deficiency of prosecution.
This court has to return its own findings with respect to the 'malice' or absence of reasonable cause on the part of defendant. However, material on this point is insufficient to give a conclusive finding that defendant acted without reasonable cause or maliciously.
CS DJ 1003/17 Nasim vs Rabbo Page 18 of 19No evidence of any previous litigation between parties has been tendered in evidence. Shahrukh and Danish, for whose loss of employment damages have been sought have not been made party to the suit.
No question with respect to the previous animosity has been put to the witness DW1 (defendant). Rather, defendant in her cross-examination has once again repeated that plaintiff and his sons had pushed her breast at a public place.
In view of the above discussion, this court is of considered opinion that plaintiff has failed to show that defendant acted without reasonable cause or maliciously. Hence, plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. Issue No.1 is decided accordingly.
Relief:
In view of above discussion, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. There is no order as to cost.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Typed to the dictation directly, abhitosh Digitally signed
by abhitosh
corrected and pronounced in the pratap pratap
singh
rathore
Date:
singh
open Court on 25.08.2025 2025.08.25
rathore 16:44:37 +0530
(Abhitosh Pratap Singh Rathore)
District Judge-04,
South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi
CS DJ 1003/17 Nasim vs Rabbo Page 19 of 19