Delhi District Court
Ranojay Bhattacharyy vs Nancy Fernandes And Anr on 11 February, 2025
In the Court of Shri Naresh Kumar Laka
District Judge - 07, Central,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
CS DJ 268/2021
CNR No. DLCT01-004220-2021
In the matter of:
Ranojay Bhattacharyya
S/o Sh. Sanjay Bhattacharyya,
R/o R-850, New Rajinder Nagar,
New Delhi-110060.
..... Plaintiff
versus
1. Nancy Fernandes,
R/o Not known
Phone Number: Not known
Facebook handle: Nancy Fernandes
Facebook profile link:
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100064563031292
2. Meta Platforms, Inc. (Deleted vide order dated 16.04.2024)
(Earlier Facebook, Inc.)
Fileheadquarte Headquarters At:
27 Feb 2023
________________________________________________________________________________
CS DJ 268/2021
Ranojay Bhattacharyya vs Nancy Fernandes and Anr. Page 1 of 14
1 Hacker Way, 1601 Willow Road,
Menlo Park, California-94025, United States
Also At: India Office At:
Level 17, Wing B, Two Horizon Center,
Harizan Colony, Sector 43,
Gurugram, Haryana 122022
Facebook India,
Building No. 14,
Mindspace It Park,
Hi-Tec City, Madhapur,
Hyderabad, AP 500 081, India
PH. NO. 650 543 4800
Email: [email protected] [email protected]
[email protected]
3. Mr. Nalin Verma,
R/o 202, Kaushiki Pride Apt.
Korji, Mohammadpur,
Patna-801105.
..... Defendants
Date of Institution : 18.03.2021
Arguments concluded on : 22.01.2025
Date of decision : 11.02.2025
Result : Decreed
SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND DAMAGES
JUDGMENT
Suit in brief ________________________________________________________________________________ CS DJ 268/2021 Ranojay Bhattacharyya vs Nancy Fernandes and Anr. Page 2 of 14 The brief facts of the present suit are that on 03.03.2021, the friend of the Plaintiff, namely, Ms. Rangana Kar received a message from Defendant No.1 on the platform of Defendant No.2 (Facebook), wherein she was told by the defendant no.1 that Plaintiff is a habitual women abuser, facing legal cases and that plaintiff's life is in danger. On 11.03.2021, the defendant no.1 again sent a message to Ms. Rangana Kar, by claiming herself to be working with close group of professionals in psychiatry/clinical psychology in cooperation with Delhi Police. It is further stated that on 11.03.2021, the defendant no.1 also updated her status on Facebook, wherein she claimed that she helps young women/youths (women) against getting into trap with psychopaths.
2. It is submitted that the plaintiff came to know about the abovesaid facts when Ms. Rangana Kar showed him the said messages. The Plaintiff alleged that Defendant No.1 has been using social media platform of Defendant No.2/Facebook for sending messages to the known persons of plaintiff in order to malign his reputation before the public at large. Hence, the present suit has been filed seeking restraining order as well as compensation.
3. Summons of the suit were sent to the defendants no.1 and 2. It was found that the defendant no.1 was not a real person. Subsequently the plaintiff impleaded the defendant no.3 in the present suit and claimed that the defendant no.1 and 3 are one and same person. The defendant no.2 and 3 filed their separate written statement.
________________________________________________________________________________ CS DJ 268/2021 Ranojay Bhattacharyya vs Nancy Fernandes and Anr. Page 3 of 14
4. In the WS filed on record on behalf of defendant no. 2/Facebook, it is claimed that the defendant no.2 is an intermediary as defined in the Information and Technology Act, 2000 and exempted from liability of any third-party information, data or communication link, hosted or made available on its platform. It is further claimed that the Facebook has no obligation to proactively monitor the Facebook services. In the subsequent stage of the case, the defendant no. 2 has already been deleted.
5. In the written statement filed by the defendant no.3, it is claimed that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in any manner because the plaintiff did not come to this court with clean hands and twisted the facts as per his requirements. It is also alleged that the Facebook account of the defendant no.3 was hacked and the messages were sent by someone else or by defendant no.1 from the said account and the defendant no.3 has no role in this regard. Hence, the present suit is liable to be dismissed.
Replication, issues and trial
6. Plaintiff filed his replication to the written statement of defendant no. 3 wherein he reiterated the facts already mentioned in plaint and claimed that the defendant no.1 and 3 are one and same person who sent the said defamatory messaged by making a fake account in the ________________________________________________________________________________ CS DJ 268/2021 Ranojay Bhattacharyya vs Nancy Fernandes and Anr. Page 4 of 14 Facebook. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 08.05.2023:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of damages for loss of reputation to the tune of Rs. 20 Lakhs as prayed for?
OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP
3. Whether the defendant no. 2 is not the necessary party to the present suit? OPD2
4. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is abuse of process of law? OPD3
5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for mis-joinder of defendant no. 3? OPD3
6. Whether no cause of action has arisen in favour of plaintiff? OPD3
7. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation? OPD3
7. The defendant no. 2 was deleted from arrays of parties vide order dated 16.04.2024. Thereafter, Sh. Shashikant Saini was appointed as a Local Commissioner for recording of plaintiff's evidence. Plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and Ms. Rangana Kar as PW-2. Despite giving opportunity, no evidence has been led by the defendant no. 1 and
3. ________________________________________________________________________________ CS DJ 268/2021 Ranojay Bhattacharyya vs Nancy Fernandes and Anr. Page 5 of 14
8. I have heard arguments from Sh. Raghav Awasthi, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and Sh. Kabir Kumar Hazarika with Sh. Abhay Singh, Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 3. No one is appearing on behalf of the defendant no.1.
Reasons for decision Issue No. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of damages for loss of reputation to the tune of Rs. 20 Lakhs, as prayed for? OPP & Issue No. 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP
9. PW-1 Sh. Ranojay Bhattacharyya has proved on record copy of screen shots of messages sent to Plaintiff's partner/friend and status updated by defendant no. 1 on several dates which are Ex.PW-1/1 to Ex.PW-1/4. Copy of Special Power of Attorney in favour of Sh. Dinesh Sharma is Ex PW-1/5. Certificate u/s.65-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1972 is Ex.PW-1/6. Copy of screen shot of status of defendant no.1 on her Facebook handle from 18.03.2021 to 28.03.2021 are Ex. PW-1/7. Copy of screen shot of Facebook messages sent to Plaintiff's partner from 17.03.2021 to 24.03.2021 are Ex. PW-1/8. Copy of screen shot of messages sent to one of the Plaintiff's friends are Ex.PW-1/9. Copy of screen shots of Facebook messages sent to Plaintiff's partner sister from ________________________________________________________________________________ CS DJ 268/2021 Ranojay Bhattacharyya vs Nancy Fernandes and Anr. Page 6 of 14 04.03.2021 tο 24.03.2021 are Ex. PW-1/10. Copy of Special Power of Attorney of Sh. Dinesh Sharma's certificate dated 30.03.2021 U/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1972 (filed along with the application dated 30.03.2021 and documents) are Ex.PW-1/11. Copy of screen shot dated 01.04.2021 of conversation between defendant no.1 and partner of plaintiff along with Facebook status is Ex.PW-1/12. Copy of screen shots dated 03.04.2021 of disclaimer and disclosure made on public profile of defendant no. 3 is Ex.PW-1/13. Copy of Special Power of Attorney of Dinesh Sharma's certificate dated 17.07.2021 U/s.65-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1972 (filed along with the application dated 17.07.2021 and documents) are Ex.PW-1/14.
10. PW-2 Ms. Rangana Kar has proved on record copy of screen shots messages sent to her on 03.03.2021 as Ex. PW-2/1. Copy of screen shots messages sent to her by defendant no. 1 on 11.03.2021 is Ex. PW-2/2. Copy of screen shots of Facebook status updated by defendant no. 1 is Ex. PW-2/3. Copy of screen shots messages sent to plaintiff's girlfriend by defendant no. 1 on 12.03.2021 is Ex. PW-2/4. Copy of screen shots of some of the status of defendant no. 1 on her Facebook handled from 18.03.2021 to 28.03.2021 is Ex. PW-2/7. Copy of screen shots messages sent to plaintiff's partner from 17.03.2021 to 24.03.2021 are Ex. PW-2/8 and copy of screen shots of Facebook messages sent to plaintiff's partner sister from 04.03.2021 to 24.03.2021 are Ex. PW-2/10. Some of the defamatory message maligning the reputation and character of the plaintiff are reproduced as under:
________________________________________________________________________________ CS DJ 268/2021 Ranojay Bhattacharyya vs Nancy Fernandes and Anr. Page 7 of 14 ________________________________________________________________________________ CS DJ 268/2021 Ranojay Bhattacharyya vs Nancy Fernandes and Anr. Page 8 of 14 ________________________________________________________________________________ CS DJ 268/2021 Ranojay Bhattacharyya vs Nancy Fernandes and Anr. Page 9 of 14
11. The Ld. Counsel for the defendant no.3 cross-examined the plaintiff and PW-2 Ms. Rangana Kar but from their testimony, no contradiction has been brought on record to disbelieve the case of the plaintiff. Both the said witnesses duly proved on record the defamatory contents and that they were sent by the Facebook account of defendant no.1. On the other hand, the onus to prove the plea that the defendant no.1 and 3 are different person and that the account of the defendant no.3 was hacked was upon the defendant no.3 but he did not lead any evidence to prove such stands. The Ld. Counsel for the defendant no.3 argued that the defendant no.3 had filed complaints to the police authority regarding hacking of his Facebook account.
12. It is the admitted case that the defamatory contents were sent from the Facebook account of the defendant no.1 and not from the Facebook account of the defendant no.3. The process of "Hacking" is meant when account/identify of a person is captured or controlled by someone else and then said hacker sent messages or uses the account of the actual person without the knowledge and consent of the actual user/author of the said account. In the instant case, there is claim of the plaintiff that the messages were sent from the actual Facebook account of the defendant no.3, therefore, the said plea of hacking of account is not acceptable at all.
________________________________________________________________________________ CS DJ 268/2021 Ranojay Bhattacharyya vs Nancy Fernandes and Anr. Page 10 of 14
13. As per law, mere filing of complaint is not sufficient to prove allegations of the said complaint and the defendant no.3 was required to summon the relevant police official to prove the said complaint and the investigation conducted on the said complaint with an outcome that the Facebook account of the defendant no.3 was actually hacked or misused by any other person (including defendant no.1) but no such step has been taken. If investigation has not been done on the said complaint, the defendant no.3 had several remedies available under law like filing further complaint to the senior police officers and/or to file complaint before the concerned Judicial Magistrate to give direction to the police to register FIR and investigate the case as per law or to file a complaint case under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The failure of the defendant no.3 to follow the said process proved that there was no substance in the said complaint of alleged hacking that is why he did not pursue it further.
14. Moreover this court can also consider the circumstantial evidence to link a fact or a person with commission of an offence or activity. The defamatory contents were sent from the Facebook account of the defendant no.1 repeatedly and the plaintiff filed the present suit and obtained a stay order. The plaintiff also posted the details of the present case on the Facebook account of defendant no.1 to desist her from sending such messages. In the present suit, the plaintiff also claimed a direction to the Facebook agency to provide the details of the creator of said account which was being used in the name of defendant no.1 because the plaintiff was not aware of any such person in the name of Nancy.
________________________________________________________________________________ CS DJ 268/2021 Ranojay Bhattacharyya vs Nancy Fernandes and Anr. Page 11 of 14 Immediately at the contemporary time, the defendant no.3 claimed that his Facebook account has been hacked. The said response and conduct of the defendant no.3 clearly showed a link with the Facebook account of the defendant no.1 and fearing that his identify will be revealed to the plaintiff and this court by the defendant no.2/Facebook agency, he concocted a story that his Facebook account has been hacked to save his skin.
15. In the light of aforesaid facts, this court holds that the defendant no.1 and 3 are one and the same person and that the defendant no.3 made a sham account in the name of defendant no.1 and sent defamatory messages to cause harm to the reputation of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has claimed compensation of Rs.20 lakh which appears to be on higher side but keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the present case and the socio-economic status of the plaintiff, this court deems it fit to award a compensation of Rs.3 lakhs which will be paid by the defendant no.3. The defendant no.1 and 3 are also restrained to post or send any message against the plaintiff which content defamatory substance at Facebook or any other social media or public platform. Accordingly, issue no. 1 and 2 are thus decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant no. 1 and 3.
Issue No. 3. Whether the defendant no. 2 is not the necessary party to the present suit? OPD2 ________________________________________________________________________________ CS DJ 268/2021 Ranojay Bhattacharyya vs Nancy Fernandes and Anr. Page 12 of 14
16. The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant no.2. However, the defendant no. 2 was already deleted from arrays of parties vide order dated 16.04.2024. Therefore, there is no need to decide the said issue.
Issue No. 4. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is abuse of process of law? OPD3 & Issue No. 5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for mis-joinder of defendant no. 3? OPD3 & Issue No. 6. Whether no cause of action has arisen in favour of plaintiff? OPD3 & Issue No. 7. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation? OPD3
17. The onus to prove the issue no. 3 to 7 was upon the defendant no.3 but the defendant no.3 did not lead any evidence despite giving opportunity. Accordingly, all the aforesaid issues are decided against the defendant no.3.
Relief/Conclusion
18. In view of the aforesaid findings, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed for recovery of damages of Rs. 3,00,000 (Rupees Three Lakhs only) in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants no.3. Plaintiff is also awarded a reasonable interest @ 6 % per annum from date of the decree till the date of realization. This court does not deem it fit to award ________________________________________________________________________________ CS DJ 268/2021 Ranojay Bhattacharyya vs Nancy Fernandes and Anr. Page 13 of 14 interest on the pendente lite period. The suit of the plaintiff is also decreed for the relief of permanent injunction directing the defendant no. 3 to cease dissemination of defamatory messages against the plaintiff on defendant no. 2's website or any other social media platform. Cost of suit is also awarded to plaintiff as per rules which will be mentioned in the decree-sheet. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced & dictated in NARESH
KUMAR
the open court on 11.02.2025 LAKA
Digitally signed by
NARESH KUMAR
(Naresh Kumar Laka)
LAKA
Date: 2025.02.03
17:12:47 +0530
District Judge-07, Central District,
THC, New Delhi,
________________________________________________________________________________ CS DJ 268/2021 Ranojay Bhattacharyya vs Nancy Fernandes and Anr. Page 14 of 14