Delhi District Court
Dr Monish Raut vs Ms Jayshree And Ors on 26 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
(SOUTH WEST): DWARKA COURTS:NEW DELHI
Presided by : Ms. SWATI GUPTA-1
Ct. Case No. 4995715/2016
In the matter of :
Dr. Monish Raut vs. Ms. Jayshree & Ors.
PS : Dwarka Sector-23
U/s: 499/500 IPC
1. CNR No. of the case : DLSW02-004617-2016
2. Date of commission of offence : 09.03.2014, 10.03.2014 &
05.09.2014
3. Date of institution of : 26.02.2016
complaint
4. Name of the Complainant : Dr. Monish Raut S/o Sh. Sheshrao
Raut, R/o House no. C65, DGS
Society, Plot no. 6, Dwarka Sec 22,
New Delhi
5. Name, parentage and address : 1. Ms. Jayshree D/o Sh. Shakamber
of accused. Dutt Sharma
2. Sh. Shakamber Dutt Sharma S/o
Sh. Kashi Ram Sharma (not
summoned)
3. Smt. Mamta Sharma W/o Sh.
Shakamber Dutt Sharma (not
summoned)
Dr. Monish Raut vs. Ms. Jayshree
PS Dwarka Sector-23
Page No.1 of 32
All R/o House no. AA66, Shalimar
Bagh, New Delhi
6. Offence complained of : Sec. 499/500 IPC
7. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
8. Final arguments heard on : 29.05.2025
9. Date of judgment : 26.08.2025
10. Final arguments addressed by Sh. M.K. Sethi, Ld. counsel for
complainant.
Sh. Sanjeev Beniwal, Ld. counsel
for accused.
11. Final Order : Accused Ms. Jayshree is convicted
for offence u/s 499/500 IPC.
JUDGMENT
1. It is the case of the complainant that he is a qualified doctor, duly registered with Delhi Medical Council and Maharashtra Medical Council, Mumbai. As per complainant, he has been rewarded and felicitated with various certificates of accolades for his meritorious achievements. Further, the wife of complainant Ms. Pooja Nautiyal is also a qualified doctor registered with Delhi Medical Council. The Brother-in-law of complainant, i.e. Mr. Vijay Nautiyal (brother of wife of complainant) got married with accused no.1 on 30.11.2011. So accused no.1 is sister-in-law of complainant. Accused no.2 and 3 are the parents of accused no.1.
Dr. Monish Raut vs. Ms. Jayshree PS Dwarka Sector-23 Page No.2 of 32
2. Accused no.1, due to matrimonial differences and under the influence of her parents i.e. accused no.2 and 3, lodged a criminal case being FIR no. 120/14 dated 09.03.2014, under section 354/354A/35C/354D/506/509/376/109/34 IPC against the complainant and other family members, including his wife, brother-in-law, father-in- law, and mother-in-law. As per complainant, the said case filed by accused no.1 was false, fabricated, frivolous, and contained defamatory allegations, and it was filed with knowledge and intention to harm the reputation of the complainant and to defame the complainant in the society.
3. Consequent upon the registration of the aforesaid FIR, complainant was arrested and was subjected to judicial custody from 09.03.2014 to 19.04.2014, for a period of 41 days, resulting in humiliation and traumatization of the complainant. During the trial of the said case, the accused No.1 did not support the allegations leveled by her in the complaint. Accordingly, vide its judgment dated 23.2.2015, the complainant herein was acquitted in case FIR no. 120/14 along with all his family members. It is alleged by the complainant that all the accused persons deposed falsely during the investigation before the investigation agency with the knowledge and malafide intention to defame the complainant in society, his workplace and between his friends and relatives. The complainant has been burdened with a lifelong stigma of being branded as an accused and having spent more than a month in Dr. Monish Raut vs. Ms. Jayshree PS Dwarka Sector-23 Page No.3 of 32 prison, which has also led to denial of job promotions. As per complainant, imputation made by accused persons has caused serious damage to his long-standing reputation in the eyes of his colleagues, family and relatives. On the basis of the said allegations, present complaint u/s 499 /500 IPC has been filed by the complainant against the accused persons.
4. Upon filing of the complaint, cognizance was taken and Pre- summoning evidence was led by the complainant. Complainant examined himself as CW1 during pre-summoning evidence and he relied upon certified copy of judgment dt. 23.02.2015 as Ex. CW1/A. Complainant also examined Sh. Madhusudan, JJA, Record room, Sessions, Dwarka Courts as CW2, in pre-summoning evidence. The said witness proved the statement of accused (PW2 in FIR no. 120/14) dt. 05.09.2014 as Ex. CW2/A.
5. Vide order dated 11.01.2017, accused no.1 summoned to face trial but accused no.2 & 3 were not summoned. Thereafter, on appearance of the accused no.1, she was served with the notice of accusation u/s. 500 IPC, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Evidence
6. During the course of trial, in order to support its case, complainant examined following witnesses:
(i) In post-summoning evidence, complainant examined himself as Dr. Monish Raut vs. Ms. Jayshree PS Dwarka Sector-23 Page No.4 of 32 CW-1. He deposed on the lines of his complaint. During his cross-
examination, the said witness was asked questions regarding rent agreements in respect of his residential premises. Thus, during cross- examination, CW1 relied upon following documents:-
Mark C-1 and Mark C-2- Copy of Rent Agreement pertaining to Flat No. 265, 2nd Floor, Pocket-1, Sector-5, Dwarka for year 2011- 2012 and 2012-2013 respectively.
Ex. CW1/A1(OSR), Ex. CW1/A2(OSR), Ex. CW1/A3(OSR) and Ex. CW1/A4(OSR)- Copy of Tripartite Agreement pertaining to C-65, DGS Society, Plot No. 6, Sector-22, Dwarka for the year 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 respectively. Mark C-3 and Mark-C-4- Copy of E-Mail dated 12.06.2014 and 30.09.2014 respectively.
Mark C-5- Copy of Kitchen Gas Receipt of complainant. Mark C-6- Copy of mobile phone bill of complainant dated 28.08.2013.
Mark C-7- Bill of Broadband connection of complainant dated 12.09.2013.
Mark-C-8- Copy of Bill of Airtel Digital TV of complainant dated 06.04.2013.
Ex. CW1/A2 (OSR)- Domestic gas consumer card bearing address- Flat no. 316, Rosewood Apartments, Sec 13A, Dwarka. Ex. CW1/A3 (OSR)- Aadhar Card of witness/complainant ending with digits 9307.
Ex. CW1/D2- Copy of Aadhar Card of wife of complainant ending with digits 0332 (relied upon by accused).
Ex. CW1/D1- Copy of Birth Certificate of child of complainant/witness (relied upon by accused).
Ex. CW1/A4-Copy of driving license of complainant/witness. During the cross-examination, documents Mark D1-D4 were also put to the witness/complainant by Ld. Counsel for accused but the same were neither admitted nor denied being photocopies. Ex. CW1/D3- Copy of vakalatnama signed by complainant in Dr. Monish Raut vs. Ms. Jayshree PS Dwarka Sector-23 Page No.5 of 32 favour of his counsel, relied upon by counsel for accused but the same were neither admitted nor denied being photocopies.
(ii) CW-2 Dr. Sandeep Joshi- He is former colleague of the complainant. During his evidence, following documents were relied upon by Ld. Counsel for accused:
• Ex. CW2/D1 and Ex. CW2/D2- Research work done by witness CW-2 with complainant (relied upon by accused).
7. No other witness was examined by the complainant. Thereafter, statement of accused was recorded u/s. 313 CrPC. In reply, the accused denied all the allegations and stated that her complaint in FIR no. 120/14 was not false and even her deposition in chief was not false. However, there were several litigations between her and her husband and in-laws and as the complainant herein was also with them, there was a compromise to settle all the matters. Therefore, it was advised by counsel for accused persons in the FIR and the prosecutor to get an easy way out by resiling from her statement and it was decided by all the party to FIR no. 120/14 that she would resile from her statement in cross examination by which she and her husband will peacefully part ways. She indeed performed her part of compromise and they peacefully divorced closing all litigation except the FIR No. 120/14 and even that was closed by acquitting all the accused in FIR because she resiled from her statement in chief as well as to police. She also stated that complainant has filed this complaint after closing all Dr. Monish Raut vs. Ms. Jayshree PS Dwarka Sector-23 Page No.6 of 32 the cases to harass her. Accused also stated that she wanted to lead defence evidence.
8. Thereafter, accused led defence evidence and examined following witnesses:
(i) DW-1 - Accused examined herself and relied upon following documents:-
Ex. DW1/C1 to Ex. DW1/C4 and Ex. DW1/D1 to Ex. DW1/D4- Four CDs and their transcripts respectively. Ex. DW1/D5- Certificate u/s 65 B under Indian Evidence Act. Ex. DW1/D6 and Ex. DW1/D7- Voice Transcripts of conversation in video recordings (objected to by Ld. Counsel for complainant). Ex. DW1/D8 and Ex. DW1/D9- Video recordings in CD of which transcripts are placed on record (objected to by Ld. Counsel for complainant).
Ex. DW1/D10- Certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act (objected to by Ld. Counsel for complainant).
Ex. DW1/C1 Certified copy of Divorce Petition filed between accused No. 1 and her husband bearing HMA No. 185/201 (relied upon by complainant).
Ex. DW1/C2 (Colly.) Certified copies of orders in HMA No. 185/2015 (relied upon by complainant).
Ex. DW1/C3(Colly.)-Certified copy of miscellaneous application No. 17/2015 filed against accused No. 1 for contempt of Court (relied upon by complainant).
Ex. DW1/C4-Certified copy of application u/s 340 CrPC filed against accused No. 1 in FIR No. 120/14 (relied upon by complainant).
Ex. DW1/C5-Copy of order passed in CC No. 861/1/14 (relied upon by complainant).
Ex. DW1/C6-Certified copy of affidavit filed by accused No. 1 in FIR No. 120/14 (relied upon by complainant).
Dr. Monish Raut vs. Ms. Jayshree PS Dwarka Sector-23 Page No.7 of 32
(ii) DW-2 Sh. Rajesh Sah- He is the Judicial Assistant, Record Clerk, Record Room (Sessions) Dwarka Courts. The said witness brought the summoned record i.e. FIR No. 120/14 PS Sector-23, Dwarka u/s 354/506/376/109/34 IPC. He proved the following documents:-
Ex. DW2/D1 (Colly./running into 33 pages)- Statement of accused (PW-2 in FIR no. 120/14) along with cross examination. Ex. DW2/D2 (Colly./running into 27 pages)- application u/s 340 Cr. PC, reply to the same, some ordersheets and Affidavit of accused No. 1, as filed in record of FIR No. 120/14.
9. During the course of arguments, an application u/s. 311 CrPC was filed by Ld. Counsel for accused for recalling of a witness. Vide order dated 02.05.2025, certified copies of order sheets dated 22.12.2014, 13.01.2015, 21.01.2015, and 28.01.2015, passed in FIR no. 120/2014 PS Sector 23 Dwarka, were taken on record as Ex. C1 to C4 respectively. Copy of the CAW cell complaint dated 18.12.2013 filed by accused was taken on record and marked as Ex. C-5.
Arguments of complainant
10. Ld. counsel for complainant argued that complainant is a qualified doctor and his wife is also a qualified doctor. At the time of filing of the case by the accused, complainant was working in Sir Gangaram Hospital. He further argued that while the FIR no. 120/14 was initially made for the offence of molestation, harassment but it was only later that the offence of rape u/s 376 IPC was added. Consequently, complainant herein was arrested on 09.03.2014 and was sent to judicial custody. He was released Dr. Monish Raut vs. Ms. Jayshree PS Dwarka Sector-23 Page No.8 of 32 on 19.04.2014 and thus, he remained in judicial custody for about 41 days. Subsequently, on 23.02.2015, complainant was acquitted. Ld. counsel for complainant relied upon following paragraphs of the judgment dated 23.02.2015 (Ex CW1/A), by which complainant was acquitted in FIR no. 120/14, PS Dwarka Sector 23:
"19. It seems that after facing extensive cross examination from the Ld. Counsel for the accused, when the prosecutrix realised her failure to substantiate the false allegations levelled by her against the accused, she came up with truth on 28.01.15 when she candidly admitted that the contents of her complaint Ex. PW2/A, statement to the Ld. M.M. u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW2/B and the examination in chief are not true and correct. She stated that she had gone to the police station only with a matrimonial dispute with her husband and there she wrote the complaint as advised by the police officials. She stated that there were temperamental differences between her and her husband Vijay and she wanted to file a complaint regarding that only against her husband and had never told police officials that she has been sexually assaulted by accused Monish. She stated that she was not aware about the ramifications of the allegations contained in her complaint and when she realised that the allegations are very serious and would entail serious repercussions for the accused, she made up her mind to tell the truth before the Court.
***
22.It is ironical and immensely regrettable that the five accused persons including two doctors and two senior citizens had to face humiliating allegations of rape/abatement to rape which Dr. Monish Raut vs. Ms. Jayshree PS Dwarka Sector-23 Page No.9 of 32 ultimately turned out to be false and baseless. It appears that the prosecutrix had compatibility issues with her husband i.e. accused Vijay and wanted to get rid of him and in order to create a ground for divorce, she lodged a false complaint making false allegations against him, his sister, brother-in-law and parents. The prosecutrix did not even spare her old aged parents-in-law who have been leading a retired life after finishing their unblemished service career and now have to live with a scar of having been accused in a rape case.
23. It is a fit case where the prosecutrix deserves to be prosecuted for setting police machinery in motion on false information and for giving false evidence before this Court but as I am informed that her husband i.e. accused Vijay has agreed to give consent for mutual divorce, which may not take place if the prosecution of the prosecutrix for the aforesaid offences is ordered. Since the prosecutrix and her husband have agreed to forget the bitterness which had arisen on account of present rape case and have agreed to dissolve their marriage by way of mutual divorce, I feel it not in the interest of justice to aggravate the bitterness any further by directing that the prosecutrix be prosecuted for giving false evidence before this Court."
11. It is submitted by Ld. counsel for complainant that the said false complaint and arrest of complainant are a blot on his career. Ld. counsel for complainant also submitted that in cross-examination of CW1/complainant, a question was put that when did he realize that he was Dr. Monish Raut vs. Ms. Jayshree PS Dwarka Sector-23 Page No.10 of 32 defamed and a question was also put as to persons before whom he was defamed. Ld. counsel argued that such questions amount to admission on the part of the accused regarding defamation of complainant. It is also argued that attempt has been made on behalf of accused to establish that complainant was residing with his in-laws (including accused no.1) at C-43, DGS Society, plot no.6 Dwarka, Sector 22, New Delhi. But it has been proved by the complainant that he was residing at C-65, DGS Society, plot no.6 Dwarka, Sector 22, New Delhi, i.e. at the time of FIR, complainant was residing near the house of accused and not in the same house as accused.
12. Ld. counsel for complainant also relied upon the testimony of CW2 to argue that CW2 as well as other colleagues of complainant were aware about the allegations of the offence of rape made against the complainant and about the arrest of the complainant. He further argued that testimony of CW2 proves that lady staff started avoiding complainant as a consequence of allegations of rape made against him. Ld. counsel also argued that complainant lost promotion because of the same and subsequent acquittal could not change the factum of loss of reputation already caused to the complainant.
13. Ld. counsel for complainant further argued that even in the statement u/s 313 CrPC, accused did not deny the complaint or deposition made by her. Even in her examination-in-chief as DW1, accused stated Dr. Monish Raut vs. Ms. Jayshree PS Dwarka Sector-23 Page No.11 of 32 that her complaint was correct and deposition was true but she resiled from the same on the advice of Public Prosector. However, Ld. counsel submitted that from the evidence recorded in FIR no. 120/14, placed on record as Ex. DW2/D1, it can be seen that the accused had failed to substantiate her allegations of rape against the complainant herein and she herself admitted that she had filed a false complaint. But to save herself from conviction in the present case, she is now making up a story that she resiled from the statement on the suggestion of ld. Public Prosecutor. He further submitted that the sanctity of trial conducted before Ld. ASJ in FIR no. 120/14 cannot be challenged on the suggestion of accused. He further pointed out that no such grounds of pressure or settlement were raised in the appeal against judgment of acquittal.
14. Ld. counsel for complainant relied upon the following judgments to support his case:
• Subramanian Swamy vs. Union of India, Min. of Law 2016 7 SCC 221 • Ram Jethmalani vs. Subramaniam Swamy dt. 03.01.2006 • Indian Medical Association vs. V.P. Shantha & Ors. 1995 SCC (6) 651 • Dhruva Charan Khandal vs. Dinabandhu Patri AIR 1966 ORI 15 • Chaman Lal vs. The State of Punjab 1970 AIR 1372 • Smt. Sushma Rani vs. H.N. Nagaraja Rao AIR ONLINE 2020 KAR 2069 Dr. Monish Raut vs. Ms. Jayshree PS Dwarka Sector-23 Page No.12 of 32 • Thiagaraya vs. Krishnasahmi dt. 09.02.1892 Arguments of accused
15. Ld. counsel for accused argued that witness CW2 (Dr. Sandeep Joshi) was not examined in pre-summoning evidence. He also argued that the present case is covered under exceptions to S. 499 IPC. Ld. counsel also submitted that accused had made a complaint in good faith without the intention of defaming the complainant. Ld. Counsel for accused also argued that mere complaint to police cannot amount to the offence of defamation. Alternatively, Ld. counsel also argued that if a statement is made by one person and it is made public by another, it cannot be said that the person who made the statement has committed the offence of defamation. Ld. counsel pointed that in the present case, accused did not make any publication of her statement and thus, she cannot be said to have committed that offence of defamation.
16. Ld. counsel also submitted that the present case has been filed only after the acquittal of the complainant and not immediately after the alleged publication or making of compliant in FIR no. 120/14. He has argued that the accused was first manipulated into settling the disputes and resiling from her statement and once the complainant was acquitted, he chose to file this complaint for defamation. Ld. Counsel also relied upon para 23 of the judgment dt. 23.02.2015 (as reproduced under para 10 herein above), by which the complainant was acquitted in FIR no. 120/14.
Dr. Monish Raut vs. Ms. Jayshree PS Dwarka Sector-23 Page No.13 of 32 In this regard, he submitted that while passing the judgment of acquittal, Ld. Session Court itself deemed it appropriate not to aggravate the bitterness between the accused and her husband as they had settled their disputes mutually. He further argued that defamation is not the same thing as giving false evidence in Court and while the accused could be prosecuted for giving false evidence in Court if FIR no. 120/14 (as she has resiled from her statement) but in the facts of the case, offence of defamation is not proved.
17. Ld. counsel for accused also argued that there is no witness or document to show that any increment/promotion was in fact denied to the complainant. He also argued that witness/CW2 came to depose at the instance of complainant and thus, he is an interested witness and his testimony is not reliable. Ld. Counsel also relied upon the journals Ex. CW2/D1 and Ex. CW2/D2 to show that name of complainant was still getting published in the journals and thus, no harm to his reputation was caused because of FIR no. 120/14.
18. Ld. counsel for accused relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court passed in the case of Smt. Sneh Lata vs. Sunita, dt. 30.07.2011 in CRM No. M-27063 of 2011, to contend that mere filing of false complaint does not amount to defamation.
Dr. Monish Raut vs. Ms. Jayshree PS Dwarka Sector-23 Page No.14 of 32 Analysis and Decision
19. I have heard the arguments of both the sides and given my thoughtful consideration to the material on record alongwith the arguments of both the sides. The offence of defamation is defined under section 499 of the IPC, which provides as follows:
"499. Defamation -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, 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.
Explanation 1.-It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives. Explanation 2.-It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such. Explanation 3.-An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation.
Explanation 4.-No imputation is said to harm a person's reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome Dr. Monish Raut vs. Ms. Jayshree PS Dwarka Sector-23 Page No.15 of 32 state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful."
Punishment for the offence of defamation is provided under Section 500 IPC as follows:
"500. Punishment for defamation.-Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."
20. To prove the offence of defamation, the first ingredient that needs to be proved is that the accused has either made or published an imputation concerning complainant, orally or in writing or by signs or by visible representations. Before proceeding further, it may be relevant to discuss that it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment of Google India Pvt. Ltd. vs Visaka Industries 2020 4 SCC 162 that the criminal offence of defamation under Section 499 IPC is committed when a person makes a defamatory imputation which would consist of the imputation being conveyed to the person about whom the imputation is made. A publication, on the other hand, is made when the imputation is communicated to persons other than the persons about whom the defamatory imputation is conveyed. A person, who makes the defamatory imputation, could also publish the imputation and thus, could be the maker and the publisher of a defamatory imputation. On the other hand, a person may be liable though he may not have made the statement but he publishes it. Reference may also be made to the judgment of Mohd. Abdulla Dr. Monish Raut vs. Ms. Jayshree PS Dwarka Sector-23 Page No.16 of 32 Khan v. Prakash K., (2018) 1 SCC 615.
21. The allegation of the complainant is that the accused gave a complaint on the basis of which FIR no. 120/14 dt. 09.03.2014 u/s 354/354A/354C/354D/506/509/376/109/34 IPC was registered at PS Dwarka Sec 23. Statement of accused u/s 164 CrPC was also recorded in the said case. Thereafter, accused also deposed as a witness in FIR no. 120/14 (PW2) on 05.09.2014. As per the said complaint, statement u/s 164 CrPC, FIR and the deposition made in Court, accused made the following allegations against the complainant herein:
i. Complainant was having a bad eye upon accused. ii. Complainant used to flirt with accused, hold her hands, touch her cheeks and shower praises regarding her bodily features. iii. In December 2011, complainant touched her(accused) hips while dancing, in Kingdom of Dreams, Gurgaon. iv. From May 2013 on wards, complainant and his wife started residing in the house of accused and complainant kept her husband (Vijay) under the influence of liquor.
v. On 15.08.2013, at night, while the accused was in kitchen, complainant kissed the accused forcibly on her lips and pressed her breast. Accused ran to her bedroom but the complainant followed her there and started rubbing his stethoscope on her breast and hips and all over her body from behind as well as front. Complainant lifted the nightdress of accused and inserted the knob of stethoscope Dr. Monish Raut vs. Ms. Jayshree PS Dwarka Sector-23 Page No.17 of 32 into her vagina.
vi. Complainant repeatedly asked her to engage in physical relations with him.
vii. On 17.08.2013 night, when accused visited washroom, complainant reached there and he was wearing only underwear he gagged her mouth and forcibly touched his hand all over her body and told her that he loved her and could not see her crying and asked her to leave her drunkard husband Vijay.
22. The statement of accused (PW2 in FIR no. 120/14) dt. 05.09.2014 is proved on record as Ex. DW2/D1. In the said statement, it is also stated that the accused visited the PS on 09.03.2014 and submitted a written complaint, on the basis of which FIR was registered. She also stated that she was produced before a lady Magistrate in Dwarka Court on the next day, who recorded her statement. In the present case also, the accused has not denied making the complaint to the police on the basis of which aforesaid FIR no. 120/14 was registered. She has also not denied making the statement u/s 164 CrPC or the deposition in Court made on various dates in FIR no. 120/14. Even in her statement u/s 313 CrPC, accused has not denied making the complaint in FIR no. 120/14 or her statement u/s. 164 CrPC or her examination-in-chief recorded in Court in the trial of the said FIR. Further, even in her examination-in-chief during defence evidence as DW1, in the present case, the accused has specifically deposed that the complainant had done 'ghinoni harkat' with her of which she Dr. Monish Raut vs. Ms. Jayshree PS Dwarka Sector-23 Page No.18 of 32 lodged FIR no. 120/14 PS Sec 23 Dwarka. She has also not denied recording of her statement before Ld. MM u/s. 164 CrpC or her evidence before the Ld. Trial Court. Accordingly, filing of the complaint or recording of statement u/s 164 CrPC or recording of evidence in FIR no.120/14 PS Sec 23 Dwarka is not in dispute. Thus, clearly an imputation concerning the complainant has been published by the accused.
23. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for accused that the imputation was not publicized or published by the accused, as she had merely made a complaint to the police station. However, there is no merit in the said argument as considering the settled law as stated above, once the imputation is made to a person other than the person against whom imputation is made, it amounts to publication. 'Publication' for the purpose of offence of defamation u/s 499 IPC should not be narrowly construed. In my considered opinion, 'Publication' for the purpose of S. 499 IPC will include the imputation as made by the accused in the present case in the nature of her complaint at PS, as well as her statement u/s 164 CrPC and her deposition in Court. Ld. Counsel for accused relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Smt. Sneh Lata vs. Sunita (supra). However, the said judgment does not apply to the facts of the present case. In the said judgment, neither the complainant was sent to judicial custody on account of false complaint nor there was admission by the accused regarding falsity of her complaint. Hence, the said judgment cannot be applied to the facts of the present case.
Dr. Monish Raut vs. Ms. Jayshree PS Dwarka Sector-23 Page No.19 of 32 Thus, first ingredient of the offence that the accused published an imputation concerning the complainant orally as well as in writing, stands proved.
24. Second ingredient to be proved for the offence of defamation u/s 499 IPC is that the imputation concerning the complainant must be made by accused with intention to harm or having knowledge or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of complainant. The said ingredient is required to be read together with Explanation 4 to Section 499 IPC, which requires that no imputation is said to harm a person's reputation unless the imputation, directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the character or credit of that person or causes it to be believed that the person is in a loathsome or disgraceful state. Therefore, the onus on the complainant is to prove that (i) the accused had an intention/ knowledge/ reason to believe to cause harm to the reputation of the complainant; and (ii) the imputation made by the accused actually caused harm to the reputation of the complainant.
25. In the present case, accused had published imputations against the character of complainant by making allegations of sexual harassment and rape against him. Allegations of rape u/s 376 IPC are of grave nature and consequent upon the allegations, complainant was arrested and sent to judicial custody for a period of 41 days (from 9.3.2014 to 19.04.2014). Period spent by complainant in judicial custody is not disputed.
Dr. Monish Raut vs. Ms. Jayshree PS Dwarka Sector-23 Page No.20 of 32 Complainant is a qualified and practising doctor. It cannot be said that accused was unaware about the consequences of the said imputations or that she had no reason to believe that such imputation would harm the reputation of the complainant. Thus, even assuming the accused did not have the intention to harm the reputation of complainant but she surely had the knowledge and reason to believe that the imputation would harm the reputation of the complainant.
26. In order to prove that the reputation of complainant was in fact harmed by the imputations published by accused, complainant has examined CW2 Dr. Sandeep Joshi. The said witness deposed that he was acquainted with the complainant in Sir Gangaram Hospital and during the month of March 2014, he and his colleagues at the said hospital came to know that complainant was arrested and that allegations leveled against him were of sexual harassment and rape. He further deposed that as the allegations were made by some close relatives, he and his colleagues thought that there could be some truth in the same. He also deposed that after the complainant joined his duties, he and his colleagues avoided any consultations or query relating to patients with the complainant. Even the lady staff started avoiding complainant. He also deposed that after the incident of his arrest and judicial custody of allegations of rape and sexual harassment, he was also not invited to clubs, seminars, case presentations in the department, unless very necessary. He also deposed that the complainant was cut short of emergency duties and was bypassed Dr. Monish Raut vs. Ms. Jayshree PS Dwarka Sector-23 Page No.21 of 32 attending female patients. He also deposed that while he was promoted during his tenure at Sir Gangaram Hospital, but complainant was not given any promotion or salary hike as he was involved in the incident. He also stated that the complainant was not given a farewell or a certificate of recommendation when he left Sir Gangaram Hospital.
27. The said witness was extensively cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused. Ld. Counsel for accused argued that the said witness/CW2 failed to produce any document in support of his averments. However, it may be noted that the said witness has stated in his evidence that at the time of leaving, no farewell or certificate of recommendation was given to complainant. Now, there cannot be any document in his regard. Further, there can also not be any documentary evidence as regards the testimony of CW2 to the effect that he and his colleagues thought that there might be some truth on the allegations made against the complainant or that after the resumption of duties by complainant, they avoided consultations with the complainant or to refer patients to the complainant. It cannot be ignored that the complainant remained in judicial custody from 09.03.2014 to 19.04.2014 and judgment of acquittal was passed on 23.02.2015. Thus, during the said period the harm caused to the reputation of complainant has been proved by the oral testimony of witness CW2. No contradictory evidence has been brought on record by the accused. It was also vehemently argued by Ld. Counsel for accused that the witness/CW2 was an interested witness as he himself stated that he was deposing at the Dr. Monish Raut vs. Ms. Jayshree PS Dwarka Sector-23 Page No.22 of 32 instance of the complainant. However, I do not find any merit in the said submission as even though the witness has come to depose at the instance of complainant but he has no personal interest in the matter.
28. It must be noted that allegations of rape are serious in nature and word of prosecutrix is given so much weightage that in a given case, conviction may be based even on sole testimony of prosecutrix, if the same is found to be trustworthy. To say that a person accused of a rape and sexual harassment, even after he is taken into custody, should be required to prove by way of documents that his reputation was harmed, would be an anomaly and miscarriage of justice. The fact that a qualified doctor is taken into judicial custody on the allegations of sexual harassment and rape, by itself is sufficient to prove that his credit and moral character was lowered in the estimation of others. Thus, second ingredient of the offence is also proved.
29. Coming now to the defence of the accused, it has been argued on behalf of the accused that the statements including the complaint, statement u/s. 164 CrPC and deposition in Court in FIR no. 120/14 were all true, except that she was told to resile from her statements and testimonies by Ld. Public Prosecutor and Ld. Counsel for complainant on the pretext of settlement. The accused who examined herself as DW1 in the present case, deposed that she had stated true and correct facts before the Hon'ble Court in FIR no. 120/14 PS Sec 23 Dwarka and she also Dr. Monish Raut vs. Ms. Jayshree PS Dwarka Sector-23 Page No.23 of 32 supported her version in cross-examination on 5-6 dates. She further deposed that there were several meetings and discussions with Public Prosecutor, her ex-husband, Ld. Counsel for complainant, to discuss settlement of the case and she was advised by public prosecutor to blame the police and to resile from her previous allegations. In this regard, accused also relied upon various audio/video recordings.
30. To consider the defence of accused, reference is required to be made to cross-examination of accused dt. 28.01.2015 conducted in FIR no. 120/14 PS Sec 23 Dwarka. In the said cross examination, accused (PW2 therein) stated that the complaint was in her handwriting, and she wrote the same in PS but its contents were not true and correct. She further deposed as follows:
"The complaint Ex. PW2/A is in my handwriting. I wrote the same in the police station. However, its contents are not true and correct. I had gone to the police station with my matrimonial dispute with my husband and there I was told by the police officials to write whatever they say and as I was under intense depression and stress, I wrote whatever I was told to write by the police officials. Same thing happened when I was produced before the Ld. M.M. for recording of my statement. The police officials had accompanied me to the court on that day and told me to say to the Ld. M.M. whatever is written in the complaint. I deposed before this court also on the pressure of the police officials. I was in a state of depression and the police officials had met me outside the court and told Dr. Monish Raut vs. Ms. Jayshree PS Dwarka Sector-23 Page No.24 of 32 me to state in the court whatever is written in the complaint. The police officials were in private dress and without any name plates and hence I cannot tell their names and rank. I deposed before this court on the pressure of the police officials.
It is correct that I was never subjected to sexual assault by accused Monish Raut with the aid of other four accused. It is correct that the incidents mentioned by me in the complaint Ex. PW2/A, statement u/s.164 Cr.PC Ex. PW2/B and in my examination in chief have never taken place and I have mentioned these incidents only on the advise and pressure of the police officials. It is correct that the contents of my complaint, my statement u/s.164 Cr.PC and my examination in chief are incorrect and false. I have never been assaulted or threatened by any of the accused. There were temperamental differences between myself and my husband Vijay and I wanted to file a complaint regarding that against my husband. I never told police officials that I have been sexually assaulted by Dr. Manish Raut or had been threatened by the other accused.
I was never aware about the ramifications of the allegations contained in my complaint, statement u/s.164 Cr. PC and in my examination in chief against the accused. It is when I realized that these allegations are very serious and would entail serious repressions for the accused that I made up my mind to tell the truth before this court today. Accordingly, I am stating truth before this court today. Whatever I have stated earlier before this court was not true and correct.
Dr. Monish Raut vs. Ms. Jayshree PS Dwarka Sector-23 Page No.25 of 32 Today, I have deposed truthfully and without any fear, threat or coercion. reiterate that the allegations levelled against the accused in my earlier statements are totally false and they are innocent."
31. In view of the aforesaid, it is noted that the accused admitted in her cross-examination that she had filed a false complaint as told by the police officials and she had also deposed before the Ld. MM at the instance of police officials and even in the Court, her deposition was made in the pressure of the police official. She admitted that she was not subjected to sexual assault by complainant herein and the incidents mentioned by her in complaint Ex. PW2/A, statement u/s 164 CrPC Ex. PW2/B and her examination-in-chief had never taken place and that she had mentioned those incidents only on the advise and pressure of the police officials.
32. Thus, it must be seen that first the accused made a complaint to the police station, inter alia making allegations against the complainant. Thereafter, she gave a statement u/s 164 CrPC to the Ld. MM and also deposed before the Ld. Trial Court. Subsequently, she denied the contents of all the three statement/deposition and blamed it upon the police officials. Now, the accused is again insisting upon the truthfulness of the statement and deposition in chief examination and denying the truthfulness of her deposition in cross examination dated 28.01.2015. While in her cross examination, the accused blamed the police official, in Dr. Monish Raut vs. Ms. Jayshree PS Dwarka Sector-23 Page No.26 of 32 the present case, she is blaming Ld. Public prosecutor and Ld. Counsel for the complainant for the same. It is the case of accused that on the pretext of settlement, she was made to resile from her previous complaints and statements.
33. Firstly, in my considered opinion, the accused cannot be permitted to keep changing her stand and keep on blaming someone else for her false statements made on oath in Court. Secondly. it is unbelievable that a woman against whom an offence of rape has been committed, would resile from her allegations of rape for the purpose of settlement. It is settled law that settlement is not permissible in rape cases, as the same are not compoundable and even the higher Courts do not encourage settlement in rape cases except in rarest of rare cases. But that does not give a complainant in a rape case, an excuse to resile from her statement or complaint, on the pretext of settlement. Thirdly and more importantly, the complainant has already been acquitted vide a reasoned judgment dated 23.02.2015. By asserting the truthfulness of her previous complaint/statement/examination in chief, accused is in fact expecting this Court to doubt the trial and judgment in FIR no. 120/2014, which has already attained finality.
34. It may also be noted that the accused admitted in her cross- examination as DW1 that she had engaged a private counsel for support and legal assistance during the trial for the entire period. Thus, it is Dr. Monish Raut vs. Ms. Jayshree PS Dwarka Sector-23 Page No.27 of 32 unbelievable that the accused who was being advised by a legal counsel would resile from her complaint or statement merely on the advise of Ld. Public prosecutor or Ld. Counsel for the complainant. It is also noted that while the judgment in FIR no. 120/14 was passed on 23.02.2015, whereby the accused was acquitted, the joint petition for obtaining divorce by mutual consent was listed on 10.04.2015 whereby the accused refused to give her statement of first motion. Thus, it is unbelievable that while the accused resiled from her statement/deposition in the rape case on 23.02.2015 on the pretext of settlement and on the advise of Ld. Public Prosecutor and Ld. Counsel for complainant, but after almost six weeks, she refused to give her statement for divorce by mutual consent. It may also be noted that case pertaining to FIR no. 120/14 was u/s 354/354A/354C/354D/506/509/376/34/109 IPC and was not concerned with the matrimonial disputes between the accused and her husband. Accused being an educated woman, should have known the difference and if the accusations made by her were truthful, she ought to have chosen to settle the matrimonial dispute, without prejudice to her right to pursue the rape case on merits.
35. It is also a matter of record that the accused had filed an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court against the judgment of acquittal dt. 23.02.2015. However, she filed an affidavit before the Court of Ld. ASJ, Special, FTS, Dwarka stating that she did not intend to challenge the judgment dt. 23.02.2015 by way of appeal to Hon'ble High Court. The Dr. Monish Raut vs. Ms. Jayshree PS Dwarka Sector-23 Page No.28 of 32 argument of the accused that she resiled from her complaint/statement/deposition only at the behest of Ld. Public Prosecutor or Ld. Counsel for accused as her matrimonial dispute had to be settled, can neither be permitted nor seems probable.
36. In support of her defence, accused has also relied upon audio and video recordings and their transcripts which are, Ex. DW1/C1 to Ex. DW1/C4, Ex. DW1/D1 to Ex. DW1/D4 and Ex. DW1/D5 to Ex. DW1/D10. Accused is relying upon the same to contend that she had resiled from her statement/complaint/deposition on the asking of Ld. Counsel for complainant and Ld. Public Prosecutor. Accused has filed certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act to prove the said audio and video recordings and their transcripts. However, it must be noted that certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act can only make the recordings admissible without further production of the original. The said certificate by itself does not prove the genuineness or authenticity of the audio and video recordings. DW1 has nowhere deposed in her evidence as to on which dates the said meetings were held and recordings were made. She has not deposed specifically as to which recording was made at which place and by whom. Even in the transcripts that are filed by her, date and place of recording is not mentioned.
37. Be that as it may, it is the responsibility of a complainant who files a case for sexual harassment or rape, to depose truthfully in Court. It is not Dr. Monish Raut vs. Ms. Jayshree PS Dwarka Sector-23 Page No.29 of 32 the case of the accused that she was coerced or forced in any manner to resile from her statement/complaint/deposition in Court. Even from the perusal of the transcripts, it appears that the accused was interested in settlement of her matrimonial disputes, more than pursuing the case of rape against the complainant herein. The fact remains that the accused admitted on oath before the Ld. Sessions Court in FIR no. 120/14 that she had filed a false complaint against the complainant. The accused can not now resile from or take back her admission made on oath on 28.01.2015 in FIR no. 120/14, by blaming either Ld. Public Prosecutor or Ld. counsel for complainant.
38. At this stage, it must also be noted that Ld. counsel for accused had extensively cross-examined the complainant on the aspect of his residential address to show that the complainant was in fact residing with the accused in her matrimonial house at C43, DGS Society, Sec 22 Dwarka. However, the same is irrelevant in as much as the place where the complainant was residing does not by itself prove that the allegations made by the accused against the complainant in FIR no. 120/14 were true and correct. Similarly, Ld. counsel for accused also relied upon order- sheets dt. 22.12.2014, 13.01.2015, 21.01.2015 and 28.01.2015 passed in FIR no. 120/14 (Ex. C1-C4) to show that accused was present on all the dates but she was not cross-examined on joint request as settlement talks were going on and finally on 28.01.2015, the accused turned hostile due to settlement. However, the same are also not relevant because as already Dr. Monish Raut vs. Ms. Jayshree PS Dwarka Sector-23 Page No.30 of 32 stated above settlement of matrimonial case is not a justifiable excuse for a complainant in a rape case to turn hostile.
39. The last thing to be examined is that whether or not the case of accused falls in any of the exceptions carved out in S. 499 IPC. First exception to S. 499 IPC provides that it is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person, if it be for public good that imputation should be made or published. However, as the imputation in the present case has been proved to be false or untrue, first exception is not applicable. Eighth exception to S. 499 IPC provides that it is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject- matter of accusation. Ninth exception to S. 499 IPC provides that it is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another if the imputation is made in good faith for the protection of interest of the person making it. However, again in the present case it cannot be said that the accusation was made by accused against the complainant in good faith. If at all the accusation had been made in good faith, the accused would not have chosen to resile from her statements or depositions which contained the accusations. Hence, eighth & ninth exceptions are also not applicable to the facts of the present case.
40. In view of the above discussion, it is concluded that the complainant has been successful in establishing his case beyond Dr. Monish Raut vs. Ms. Jayshree PS Dwarka Sector-23 Page No.31 of 32 reasonable doubt and all the ingredients of offence u/s 499 IPC have been proved against the accused. The complaint of the complainant is allowed, and the accused Ms. Jayshree is hereby convicted of the offence under Section 499 r/w 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1872.
Let the convict be heard separately on quantum of sentence and compensation.
A copy of this judgment be given free of cost to the convict.
Digitally signed by SWATIPronounced in the open Court SWATI GUPTA
On 26th August, 2025 GUPTA Date:
2025.08.26
17:00:37 +0530
SWATI GUPTA-1
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate
(SW) Dwarka Courts: New Delhi
Dr. Monish Raut vs. Ms. Jayshree
PS Dwarka Sector-23
Page No.32 of 32