Delhi District Court
Siddharth Rajkonwar vs . on 11 April, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANKUR JAIN
ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
DWARKA COURTS : NEW DELHI
CC No: 560/14
PS: Dwarka Sec. 23
U/s: 200 Cr.PC
Date of Institution of the case : 17.07.2014
Date on which the Order reserved : 11.04.2016
Date on which the Order pronounced : 11.04.2016
Unique ID of the case : 02405R018321
In the matter of:
Siddharth Rajkonwar
S/o Sh. Girish Rajkonwar
R/o Flat No. 221, Sanskriti Apartment,
Sector 19-B, Dwarka,
New Delhi .... Complainant
Vs.
Meesha Arora
D/o Sh. Vimal Arora
R/o FC-134, 2nd Floor,
Tagore Garden, New Delhi .... Accused
ORDER
1. By this order, I shall decide whether accused is liable to be summoned or not.
2. Brief facts as necessary are that complainant has filed a complaint u/s 200 Cr.PC. In the complaint, complainant has stated that he is a law abiding and peaceful citizen of India and currently living in Delhi; that he is a brilliant student and aspires to become an IAS Officer in order to CC No:560/14 Siddharth Rajkonwar Vs. Meesha Arora Page 1 of 33 serve the nation wholeheartedly.
3. In his complaint, complainant has alleged that accused met him during her internship at Reserve Bank of India in June 2011, where the complainant was pursuing a project. Accused approached the complainant in order to get help to accomplish her project at RBI whom she believed to be an intelligent person due to his brilliant approach towards everything while doing his project and also because of praises and appreciation from the seniors; the complainant being good hearted, helping and friendly in nature agreed to help the accused in her project. During the tenure at RBI, complainant and accused became good friends but accused misled the complainant by giving him a non-active mobile number and also hiding her real personal number with the complainant and gave a number which was mostly switched off. Accused even told the complainant that she does not speak much over the mobile phone, but shared her e-mail ID for receiving electronic copy of project documents and power point presentations for completing her project work and said that the can communicate through e-mails. Complainant became very surprised as to how the accused who said that the she needs regular gossip and who was seen to be speaking over the mobile phone regularly, keep a mobile phone which is mostly switched off or non-operational. But because of the trust and belief upon the accused, the complainant satisfied himself as the accused must be telling truth. Accused even promised the complainant that she will help him in Economics for the preparation of UPSC examination to be CC No:560/14 Siddharth Rajkonwar Vs. Meesha Arora Page 2 of 33 held next year, where Economics was one of the optional subjects of the complainant in his UPSC examination. Accused even assured the complainant that she will guide, refer and give some books/readings/journals to the complainant for the preparation as she had graduated in Economics and was pursuing Masters in Economics and complainant was an Engineer by education.
4. It is further alleged that accused gave one MTNL mobile number +91-9868495505 to the complainant which used to be switched off all the time and when the complainant asked about the same from the accused, she replied that she keeps her mobile phone switched off due to some personal reason and advised complainant to do all the communication on emails so all the communication with accused used to happen through e-mails messages, however, sometime it was accused who used to call complainant on his mobile number for her personal work from different numbers including one land line number. At the mean time, they also become friends on different social networking sites i.e. face book. The copy of e-mails is annexed as Annexure A.
5. It is further stated by complainant that he applied for job in August 2011 and was selected for the same. Till April, 2012 complainant and accused had cordial relation and also had good communication through e-mail. They normally exchanged 5-7 e-mails in a week time. The contents of e-mails were about knowledge and sharing informative and interesting videos. After completion of the CC No:560/14 Siddharth Rajkonwar Vs. Meesha Arora Page 3 of 33 internship of accused at RBI, the accused could not manage to get job during her final semester and sought help from the complainant if he could help her in getting a job. Complainant on his part sent many job openings to the accused. Complainant even helped the accused for getting short listed in a job interview at the very same company where the complainant used to work but unfortunately the accused could not clear the final round of Interview, hence, was not selected for the job.
6. It is further stated by complainant that in May 2012, the complainant sought help from the accused in regard to the preparation for his UPSC examination through e-mail but the accused stopped replying to the e-mails written to her and never helped back in return. When the complainant saw accused was very active on the facebook, he messaged the accused as what went wrong and why she is not replying to his e-mails and not helping the complainant for his preparation in Economics which was optional subject of UPSC examination. She kept lying and giving false excuses on the pretext of one or the other and tried to run away from her promise which now proved to be false. When the complainant tried further and asked her to solve the problem, if any, by honestly talking it over the phone but the accused did not gave any ear to the complainant's request and started argument with the complainant and even abused him.
7. It is further stated that in the last week of July when the UPSC prelims exam result declared and complainant CC No:560/14 Siddharth Rajkonwar Vs. Meesha Arora Page 4 of 33 cleared it, and came to know that the main examination will take place in the month of October, 2012, complainant got stressed as there were very less time left for the mains examination so he needed help regarding books, readings and all. So the complainant called the accused on weekend on her home landline number, which complainant got from the accused during earlier conversation. This was the number from which the accused had earlier called the complainant to take help and prepare for her job interview and since the accused had earlier told the complainant that she used to visit her home in Rajouri Garden during the weekends from hostel as she was staying in the hostel which was also in Delhi itself for the Young India Fellowship Program. The mother of accused received the phone call and said that the accused is still in hostel. But the mother said that the accused is having another mobile number and gave the number to the complainant. It was another shock for the complainant as he was told by the accused all throughout the year during their interaction that she avoids speaking over the phone and does not have any other mobile number and that she only had a MTNL number which she gave to the complainant which was mostly kept switched off. After getting the real mobile number of the accused, the complainant called her to know exactly what went wrong between them and why the accused indulged in such lies, falsehood, deception and why the accused was misleading him for a year. But instead of apologizing, the accused abused the complainant when he called her and asked the complainant from where he got the number and despite several request of complainant for the CC No:560/14 Siddharth Rajkonwar Vs. Meesha Arora Page 5 of 33 settlement of any dispute, if any between them, she did not listen to the complainant's request and disconnected the call.
8. It is further alleged that being an aggrieved person from the unjust and undignified treatment of the accused, the complainant decided to speak to the parents of the accused in order to sort out the issue and about being maltreated and used many time by the accused for getting her work done from the complainant. So when complainant called on home landline number of the accused, her father received the call and listened to the complainant very patiently and the complainant told the father of accused the whole story till that date. After listening to the whole story, father of accused admitted that the complainant has been treated unjustly and very badly for the sake of her own means by his daughter. Thereafter, father of accused took complainants mobile number and asked about his background and family details and further assured him that he will speak with his daughter and will try to resolve the problem if any and will inform the complainant accordingly. The complainant even requested to the father of the accused to read all e-mail messages written by him to the accused which were being communicated by the parties and even offered to share his e-mail password or forward all the mails to the father of the accused.
9. It is further alleged that after sometime in the belief that the matter must have been sorted out as the father of the accused had assured the complainant that he will resolve CC No:560/14 Siddharth Rajkonwar Vs. Meesha Arora Page 6 of 33 the problem, the complainant called the accused on her real mobile number just one more time but all went futile as the accused received the call and abused the complainant in very filthy language and threatened the complainant that she will make sure that complainant will never ever become successful in his life and even said, "IAS KO TO BHUL JAO, MEIN TO TUMHE SAANS BHI NHI LENE DUNGI, MEIN TO TUMHE PURI DUNIYA ME BADNAAM KAR DUNGI". After hearing such hard words from the accused, the complainant got shocked to his utter surprise and decided to call her father again on the home land line number as the father of the accused had not called and informed about the talk between him and her daughter i.e. accused, to the complainant as promised earlier. When the father of accused picked the call and listened to grievances of the complainant, the father of accused apologised on behalf of his daughter and said that "let get the matter closed here itself". The complainant agreed to close the matter and said that there was no ill will from his side. The complainant even asserted that he is ready to cope up with the maltreatment by the accused but sought some respect from the accused as he had helped her a lot and always wished her well. The above mentioned call made by the complainant in August 2012 was his last attempt at fostering peace but the accused had an unfinished motive and vendetta to seek revenge from the complainant since the complainant had exposed the lies, bad acts and true personality of the accused in front of her parents.
10. It is further alleged that the ill motive of the accused for CC No:560/14 Siddharth Rajkonwar Vs. Meesha Arora Page 7 of 33 taking revenge and also to defame the complainant in the society where he lives became evident when she filed a false and frivolous complaint against complainant in Rajouri Garden Police Station and other different authority. After that complainant got harassment and threatening call from Rajouri Garden Police Station just a few days before the complainant's UPSC Civil Services Main Exam 2012, which was scheduled to begin from 5th October, 2012. The complainant and his family suffered a lot of mental trauma and stress and this immensely disturbed and harmed the performance of the complainant in his UPSC Civil Services Main Exam. More so, because the complainant is from an honorable family with his father being a retired officer of Indian Army and grandfather being a Member of Parliament and being law abiding citizens, they had never received such threatening call from police ever in the life of the complainant or his family members before this incident occurred. The copy of admit card of UPSC is annexed as Annexure B.
11. It is further alleged that after getting the harassment and threatening call from police, the complainant decided not to take up this matter immediately, as to why the accused did such a bad act just before the most important exam of the complainant's life for which he had quit his high paying job to focus on preparation for UPSC Civil Services Exam. The complainant got busy with his UPSC Civil Services Main Exam and thought that there was no use of trying to foster peace at a time when tempers are running high and when neither accused nor her family would reason and CC No:560/14 Siddharth Rajkonwar Vs. Meesha Arora Page 8 of 33 listen. The complainant also thought that with the passage of time the accused will intellectually and emotionally mature and reflect on her actions and realize her mistake and hence it would be better to talk to the accused at a later time when she might be in a position to listen and reason with in order to solve the problem. However, it has great impact on the mind of the complainant and complainant was not able to concentrate on his study due to immense fear to get defame in society without his fault or ill motive.
12. It is further alleged that with the objective of ending hostility and making peace, the complainant called the accused on her real mobile number in August 2013. The complainant asked the accused as to why she had done such a bad act of harassing, defaming and threatening him through police before his most important UPSC Civil Services Mains Exam and why she had misled and lied about the mobile number all the while. The accused replied that she was not accountable to the complainant for her actions and cannot be questioned by him about her actions and will repeat and will go to the police again and will destroy the complainant's peace of mind, defame him in society and ruin his career.
13. Hearing the accused, the complainant got worried that the accused still had a grudge on him and she still has a lot of resentment against the complainant since he exposed her lies and bad acts to her parents. Since the accused would not listen and cut the phone call of the complainant in seconds, the complainant wrote an email message CC No:560/14 Siddharth Rajkonwar Vs. Meesha Arora Page 9 of 33 explaining his position and requested to solve this problem. But since the accused did not pay any heed, the complainant thought that it is of no use to try to convince the accused and closed the matter from his side.
14. It is further stated that the accused still had a grudge against the complainant and wanted again to defame the complainant became evident when the complainant had applied for a job in Public Policy role in the company named Orkash Services Private Limited in September, 2013. This was the same company where the accused was working and the complainant was not aware of this fact. Later, the complainant got the call for the interview from the HR Manager and was further interviewed on 11 September, 2013. The interview went very well and the people who took the interview had given a very positive feedback. They even assured that after further due process they will intimate the complainant about the result very soon. But to the complainant's surprise he was told that some adverse internal remarks were made against his candidature, character and background, due to internal negative feedback he was not selected. The complainant immediately got to know and later realised that it was the work of the accused and she did exactly what she threatened earlier.
15. It is further stated that after the incident complainant became very worried about his future prospect as it was very evident that accused is forcing him not to take any step upward and it is a continuous process in order to fulfill CC No:560/14 Siddharth Rajkonwar Vs. Meesha Arora Page 10 of 33 her grudge, hatred and vendetta against the complainant, the accused was trying ruthlessly to stop the complainant from any progress in life. In the light of this event and fear prevailing in the mind of the complainant, complainant approached one Ms. Akanksha Gulia, who is a friend and known to the complainant since many years and was also senior batch mate of the accused in her Young India Fellowship program and requested her to mediate. But Ms. Akanksha Gulia sent an SMS message to the accused to talk and propose mediation for the problems if any, but the accused did not reply and after knowing nature and behaviour of the accused, Ms. Akanksha Gulia rescue herself from the matter and suggested to the complainant that he should better talk to Ms. Honey Pamnani who was the batch mater and best friend of accused.
16. It is further stated that in order to solve this ever growing problem the complainant called Ms. Honey Pamnani to mediate and resolve the issue, if any, as the complainant had CAT entrance exam on Monday 28.10.2013 and was apprehensive that he might get another trouble in the hand of accused again, but all went in vain as Ms. Honey Pamnani did not help in mediation and solve the crisis.
17. It is further alleged that on 24.10.2013 at around 04:50 p.m., complainant got a call from the father of the accused Mr. Vimal Arora, who maltreated and abused the complainant on the phone and even gave a death threat to the complainant. Father of accused further threatened the complainant that since now a day law is very favorable to CC No:560/14 Siddharth Rajkonwar Vs. Meesha Arora Page 11 of 33 the women and he can trap the complainant in any false and frivolous case in collusion with his daughter. After the call, the complainant got very scared since the accused and her father knows the home address of the complainant and as he is residing with his mother, who is ill and is in bad health and father who has retired from the Indian Army. After the threat call, the complainant approached the police and filed a written complaint before SHO Sector 23 Dwarka, vide DD No. 48-B on dated 26.10.2013, on the direction of the duty officer, who had consulted the SHO on the matter. The police, however, did not take any action. The copy of police complaint vide DD No. 48-B is annexed as Annexure C.
18. It is further stated that just one day before the complainant's CAT entrance examination, complainant received three harassment and threatening calls from police on 27.10.2013, particularly one from the crime branch and two from the Rajouri Garden police station as stated by the respected officer on phone based on false and frivolous complaint made by the accused so as to again harm and defame the complainant before his entrance exam so that he does not get success. The copy of admit card is annexed as Annexure D.
19. It is further stated that after the harassment call by police, the complainant got very concerned and recalled the statement of both father of accused and accused as well, where they stated to trap the complainant in false and frivolous case against women. Further, since all other CC No:560/14 Siddharth Rajkonwar Vs. Meesha Arora Page 12 of 33 mediation efforts failed, the complainant made a last attempt at solving this problem peacefully by meeting one of the professors of the accused and requested him to reason with the accused. The complainant hoped that since the accused respected her professor, then she might listen and reason to solve this problem amicably. The complainant also sent an email message to the accused with the subject 'Peace' in order to make a last attempt to settle this problem amicably.
20. It is further stated that the accused did not stop here and filed a written police complaint against the complainant on 09.11.2013, following which the complainant was summoned to Rajouri Garden Police Station and on 15th November, complainant went to the police station to join the investigation. During the investigation, complainant submitted all the case details to the IO and even submitted all the details of e-mail and SMS which complainant sent to the accused. The accused in her written complaint levied the charges to sending/making abusive e-mails/SMS/calls which led to her harassment. Further, the complainant himself requested the IO to investigate the matter to the deep and requested to probe all the details and call records. But to the shock of the complainant, the IO was totally biased and was working in glove in hand with the accused. IO never read the e-mails/SMS or enquired about the calls, instead IO asked for the written apology letter from complainant without investigating the matter and also threatened the complainant that if he will not follow the order, IO may arrest him. IO even pressurized complainant CC No:560/14 Siddharth Rajkonwar Vs. Meesha Arora Page 13 of 33 to give in writing that he will never ever call, mail or SMS the accused. But the complainant resisted all the malafide attempts of the IO and told him not to threaten and pressurize him and that the IO can lodge an FIR and that the complainant will fully cooperate in investigation and will defend every charge in the Court of law.
21. It is further stated that during investigation, complainant came to know that he was also involved in harassing three different persons, namely, Ms. Akanksha Gulia, Ms. Honey Pamnani and Mr. Siddhartha Gupta, as mentioned in the written complaint of the accused. It was utter shock for the complainant since Ms. Akanksha Gulia is a dear friend of the complainant himself and her name was written in the police complaint even without her knowledge and consent. Moreover, the complainant did not know Mr. Siddhartha Gupta who had no role in this problem between the complainant and the accused. So the accused wrote the names of these three other people in her complaint to police on her own will and imagination.
22. It is further stated that thereafter, complainant approached the police station and met with the IO and asked him about the status of the case. IO told complainant that if no incriminating evidence will be given by the accused in case then IO will file a closure report. After passing of the time when the complainant saw no further action is being taken by the police in this matter, complainant again approached the IO and requested to take the statements of Ms. Honey Pamnani, Ms. Akanksha Gulia and Mr. Siddhartha Gupta CC No:560/14 Siddharth Rajkonwar Vs. Meesha Arora Page 14 of 33 so that investigation can proceed further. The complainant was very apprehensive of the approach of police in this case as his aim was to clear UPSC exam. It is mandatory to have personal background police verification, which was well within the knowledge of the accused, hence, she thought to further damaging the background credentials of the complainant by giving false and misleading police complaint.
23. It is further stated that when the complainant saw there were no further investigation by the police or by the IO and all three person mentioned above refused to give their statement to police. Subsequently, the complainant decided to file an RTI application to know the exact status of the case in which he was falsely implicated. After filing the RTI application, the investigation got pace. The old IO was replaced by a new IO one Sh. Krishna Singh. Thereafter, the complainant got reply to his RTI filed that enquiry is pending for the complaint against him by the police. However, the complainant was not satisfied with one of the replies in the RTI pertaining to the missing record of the complaint filed against him and hence filed an appeal before the then DCP of Rajouri Garden (now Addl. Commissioner of Police). After hearing the appeal, the then DCP (now ACP) allowed complainant's prayer and instructed the IO to re-enquire the matter within seven days and also allowed the complainant to inspect the complaint register. It is pertinent to mention herewith that the complainant had filed various RTI application before the different departments in police in order to have speedy CC No:560/14 Siddharth Rajkonwar Vs. Meesha Arora Page 15 of 33 enquiry and due to such efforts of the complainant only, police followed the rule of law and also the missing complaint details which were denied in earlier RTI reply was found out. This missing detail which was later found out constitutes incriminating evidence against the accused as to how she misused the police to harass, defame and harm the complainant.
24. It is further stated that during the reply of the RTI filed by the complainant, he came to know about the facts of the case. It was a false and frivolous case being instituted upon the instruction of accused which has no iota of truth with no facts and purely on the fictitious ground. It is further submitted that when the accused made the police complaint by dialing 100 number against the complainant for harassing the accused. On two occasions, the accused called the police to her home and when on two occasions the police reached at her home for investigation, accused on both occasions never cooperated with the police and rather told that she is going out to her sister's home in Noida and she is not willing to pursue further on her own complaint, which shows her intention and motive to defame and harass complainant. It is further submitted that complainant messaged to the accused during this period also for the clarification, which she concealed and hide from the police, which shows her ill motive to harass the complainant on one pretext to other. The copy of RTI reply was annexed as Annexure E.
25. It is further stated that after the inquiry and re-enquiry on CC No:560/14 Siddharth Rajkonwar Vs. Meesha Arora Page 16 of 33 the order of DCP West District (now ACP), police found no cognizable offence against the complainant and submitted their enquiry report. In the enquiry report, the accused through her statement to police submitted that she has not got any call, e-mail or SMS from the complainant for the last two months, hence, she did not want to register any case against the complainant for the time and requested the police to close the matter right now. In her statement, the accused also stated that in the future she will make fresh complaint against the complainant if the need so arises, which only shows her malafide intention to harass and defame the complainant. The copy of RTI reply alongwith closure report was annexed as Annexure F (colly).
26. It is further alleged that during the course of investigation on the false and frivolous facts given by accused, the complainant was harassed a lot by the police and not only this the family of the complainant lost a lot of dignity, self respect and honor in the society where they reside. People in the vicinity started making comments on the character of the complainant and complainant is not even able to talk to the neighbors and relatives due to the false complaint lodged by the accused. Not only this, friend of the complainant also distanced themselves from the complainant after this episode and when contacted, they even refused to talk to complainant, which shows how badly complainant had lost his dignity among his friends and mates. The complainant was not even able to join a company named EVALUESERVE, where he got selected CC No:560/14 Siddharth Rajkonwar Vs. Meesha Arora Page 17 of 33 for the job in lieu of this false and frivolous complaint as there was a condition in the joining form which requires that the applicant should not have any criminal case pending or any enquiry/investigation pending against the applicant. Copy of joining condition of Evalueserve Company was annexed as Annexure G.
27. It is alleged that the complainant has suffered a lot not only in terms of monetary loss but also lost dignity, self respect and integrity in the eyes of the society. Since the time of inception of this false and frivolous case the health condition of complainant's mother has also worsened a lot.
28. It is further alleged that the complainant was not able to concentrate on his studies, due to this revenge episode of the accused to fulfill her malafide motive and intention and could not clear national entrance examination despite being a bright student and having a successful past record in clearing All India Engineering Entrance Exam and was amongst twenty five candidates selected through All India Entrance Test to do a project at Reserve Bank of India. Copy of Young Scholar Award Scheme of RBI was annexed as Annexure H.
29. It is further alleged that the cold calculative revenge plan of the accused to harm the complainant's career and defame the complainant in the society by using police succeeded. Her plan to harass complainant just before his important entrance exams, hindered not only his performance to achieve success but also has great economic ramification, CC No:560/14 Siddharth Rajkonwar Vs. Meesha Arora Page 18 of 33 since the complainant had quit his hgh paying job, to prepare for Civil Services Exam and being the single child of his parents, hence, there is a big opportunity cost. The accused not only has harmed the complainant, but his whole family and their sense of peace, dignity, economic and life security. This has violated the fundamental right of the complainant under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
30. Further, since the accused knows that the complainant aspires to join Public Service to serve his nation, this episode of multiple false police complaints against his name has compromised his prospective career as a civil servant. According to Hon'ble Supreme Court rulings, a person who aspires to join Public Service must be a person of utmost rectitude, impeccable character and integrity. Even during the then case of appointment of Ex-Telecom Secretary Mr. Thomas (IAS) for the post of Chief Vigilance Commissioner, the Supreme Court rules, that even if there can be legislators, who are facing criminal charges, but it cannot entitle him to such an appointment due to requirements of conforming to 'institutional integrity' and there should not even be an iota of doubt on integrity and character of the person to be appointed to such post. The Hon'ble Supreme Court gave another ruling in "Delhi Police Vs. Mehar Singh" wherein a person even after clearing the entrance exam and fulfilling all other requirements was denied to join Delhi Police as a constable due to above such grounds. This further lends credence to the malafide motive of the accused, who deliberately gave false and misleading police complaints to damage the character and CC No:560/14 Siddharth Rajkonwar Vs. Meesha Arora Page 19 of 33 background of the complainant.
31. That being aggrieved from these acts of accused, complainant again approached police and gave a written complaint on dated 04.04.2014 vide DD No. 69-B to SHO, Sector 23, Dwarka, stating all the facts and circumstances in which he was being harassed, maltreated and victimized by accused but it is great matter of concern that rather than acting on complaint, they started giving complainant advice that do not pursue with this matter otherwise it will only hamper you and your family. It seems that police is acting on behalf of accused only.
32. That the accused not only succeeded in defaming the complainant in the society but also harm his prospective career a lot. The complainant harassed a lot and also had to compromise his bright career and is not able to join any organization hampering his financial conditions a lot.
33. That the loss occurred due to false and frivolous complaint of the accused cannot be compensated only in terms of apologies but also had financial loss.
34. That complainant also sent a legal notice to the accused on 09.04.2014, which got duly served upon accused office address as well as on her e-mail address, but despite the service of legal notice, accused did not take any hid to reply the same.
35. Hence, the present complaint was filed.
CC No:560/14 Siddharth Rajkonwar Vs. Meesha Arora Page 20 of 3336. Thereafter, complainant led his evidence, in support of its case and examined four witnesses. CW-1 is a complainant himself and has reiterated the contents of the complainant. CW-2 is ASI Jagram who has proved the DD entries and the complaint of Ms. Nisha Arora. CW-3 is Sandeep Kohli, who has stated that he gave the address of the complainant to the mother of Ms. Nisha Arora. CW-4 is Ms. Akanksha Gulia, who has stated that she was acquainted with both complainant and the accused and she had agreed to mediate between the complainant and the accused.
37. Complainant has argued that the present complaint is within limitation and this Court has the jurisdiction to try the offence. He further argued that offence of defamation is clearly made out because of the complaint made by the accused herein. In support of his case, he has relied upon Narayan Ganesh Gadekar Vs. Parvati Sagun Gadekar 2013 (1) BOM.C.R (Crl) 162; Sanjay Mishra Vs. GNCT Crl. MC No. 3350/2008 decided on 23.03.2012; C S Sathya Vs. State of karnataka 1994 Crl Law Journal 1954 and M A Rumugam Vs. Kittu @ Krishnamoorthy Crl. Appeal No. 1749 of 2008 decided on 07.11.2008.
38. I have heard the complainant and perused the record.
39. There can be no dispute to the proposition of law as relied by the complainant but the same have to be applied to the facts of the case.
CC No:560/14 Siddharth Rajkonwar Vs. Meesha Arora Page 21 of 3340. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Charanjit Singh v/s D.B.Merchant 2001 (90) DLT 484, has held that "The law is well settled that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is not an empty formality and the court issuing process u/s 204 Cr.P.C. has to be satisfied on the basis of the complaint, documents and other material on record that there are sufficient grounds for proceedings against him. The satisfaction of the court that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused need to be reflected by any detailed or reasoned order but the material must be available on record justifying the formation of the satisfaction. In case summoning order are passed mechanically without any material on record grave injustice may be caused to those who are summoned without there being anything to connect them with the offence."
41. So far as the aspect of limitation is concerned, there is no dispute that the present complaint is within the period of limitation of three years as offence u/s 500 IPC is punishable with two years, and as per Section 468 (2)(c) the period of limitation is three years if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years.
42. The first complaint, which the complainant alleges has caused defamation is dated 09.11.2013. Therefore, the CC No:560/14 Siddharth Rajkonwar Vs. Meesha Arora Page 22 of 33 present complaint has been filed on 16.07.2014, and hence, the same is within limitation.
43. Complainant has argued that this Court has territorial jurisdiction to try the offence of defamation and has relied upon Section 179 Cr.PC. He has also relied upon judgment of C S Sathya (supra) and in particularly para 8, 12 and 13, which are reproduced as under:
(8) In Kamal Singh Badalia V. State, 1980 Cri LJ NOC 59, the Calcutta High Court has held that Section 179 can apply only to a case where a person is charged with an offence which constitutes not only the act committed by him but also the consequence which has ensured from the act. If the consequence is not part of the offence than Section 179 has no application. In that case, it was held where the defamatory letter was written by the accused at Patna to the Secretary of the Government at Bihar and the contents of the letter were made known to the officials of Government of Bihar before forwarding a copy thereof to another person in Calcutta.
Therefore, it was held in that case that the ingredient of publication was completed at Patna when the contents of the letter were made known to the officials in the Secretariat."
(12) The test laid down by this ruling is, the test to find out as to whether S.179, Cr.P.C., CC No:560/14 Siddharth Rajkonwar Vs. Meesha Arora Page 23 of 33 will come into play in a particular place or not is, whether the offender could have been prosecuted and punished for the offence charged even if the alleged consequence had not ensured. If the answer is in the affirmative then Section 179, Cr.P.C., does not apply and if the answer is in the negative, S.179, Cr.P.C. does apply.
(13) S.500 of I.P.C. Describes punishment for defamation and Section 499 defines defamation. The offence of defamation is committed by any person who 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 mentioned under the exceptions, to defame that person. Therefore, in order to constitute that offence not only the words should be written or spoken to, there must also be publication and they must be intended to harm the reputation of a person. The offence of defamation as defined in S.499 becomes complete when a publication is made and that publication should intend to harm the reputation of another person.
Consequence of harming and intending CC No:560/14 Siddharth Rajkonwar Vs. Meesha Arora Page 24 of 33 harming reputation of another person by a publication is a part of the ingredient of the offence as defined in S.499 of IPC. Therefore, under Section 179 of Cr.PC, either the Court where the words are spoken which are intended to be read or by signs or by visible representations makes or publishes or where the consequence of harming the reputation of another person ensue, have got the jurisdiction to try the case. The law that has been laid down by the various High Courts in the rulings to above is clear on this point that the consequence that ensue must form part of the ingredients of the offence and it is not a part of the ingredients of the offence then the consequence even if it takes place in the jurisdiction of another Court, it will not give jurisdiction to try the offence. In the instant case, from the complaint itself it can be seen that the alleged defamatory matter was published at Bangalore itself. When the matter is published in a paper or a weekly, it is intended to be read. So the consequence of harming the reputation of the complainant has ensured at Bangalore itself. The complainant reading or having come to know of this alleged defamatory matter at Udupi is not an ingredient of the offence, because the offence itself is completed at Bangalore. Therefore, in my opinion, the Court at Bangalore alone has CC No:560/14 Siddharth Rajkonwar Vs. Meesha Arora Page 25 of 33 got jurisdiction to try the offence. The learned Counsel for respondent No.2 relied on State of Punjab Vs. Nohar Chand, wherein it has been held as follows (at p.1494):-
"The Court where the substandard fertilizer is marketed will equally have jurisdiction to try the manufacturer of the substandard fertilizer whose manufacturing activity is at a different place"
44. Before deciding this issue, Section 179 Cr.PC is reproduced as under:
179, Offence triable where act is done or consequence ensues - When an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued.
45. Without going into the aspect whether this Court has jurisdiction or not as technicality of law should not sub serve the ends of justice. I am assuming that this Court has jurisdiction to try the case.
46. The formal complaint of accused Meesha Arora is reproduced as under:
"I met this person, Siddharth Rajkonwar during my internship at the Reserve Bank of Inida. At that CC No:560/14 Siddharth Rajkonwar Vs. Meesha Arora Page 26 of 33 time, he came across as a knowledgeable person, and we sometimes interacted during spare our hours. I did not share my contact details with him. When he asked, I preferred giving him a number which I was sparely using because I was not comfortable in sharing too many details.
Even on the number I gave him (which I hardly used) he would sometimes call up for frivolous reasons and so I decided to not give him my actual number at all. Post RBI, we would sometimes interact over mails. While I was looking for a job during my final year of Masters, in some of his mails he had sent me a few job links. Also, since he had previously worked in a firm called ICF International, I asked him the contact details of the HR of the Company which he provided me with. When the interview got fixed, I had called him up from the home land line to let him know about the developments.
However, things started getting strange when I began my one year at the Young India Fellowship. Slowly, I got more involved with hostel life, the courses and peers at the fellowship and my interactions with him became less frequent. However, in his mails he started criticizing me for not responding frequently and adequately. As my mails and responses became scarcer, he started to malign my fellowship. In some of his mails, he also tried to question my ethics and value system and accusing me of being disrespectful to him. His CC No:560/14 Siddharth Rajkonwar Vs. Meesha Arora Page 27 of 33 mails, by this time had become extremely disappointing despite having no right to say or use the words he did. It is because of this strange behaviour that I decided to distance myself completely from him. His mails however grew more and more fierce and demanding. He kept talking about some moral obligation which he said I had, to respond to him and help him because he had sent me the job links and the details of the HR.
Due to continuous messages on Facebook and Gmail, I blocked him from both but he kept sending me messages, every now and then by changing his mail ID and creating fake profiles.
During the fellowship he called at my home and thinking of him as a regular friend, my parents gave him my contact details. Once he got my number, he started harassing me with calls from several different numbers. In order to deal with this issue, I explained the status quo to my family. My father spoke to him at length trying to reason out with him. In the end, things got sorted out and the matter seemingly came to a close.' After YIF I secured a job with a company in Gurgaon. To my surprise this boy's mails and calls started once again. In his conversations he was asking me the same thing about why I did not give him my contact details, why I stopped responding to his mails and so on. I kept avoiding his mails and calls thinking that the situation would get better but since then it has only deteriorated.
CC No:560/14 Siddharth Rajkonwar Vs. Meesha Arora Page 28 of 33In the past months, he has been seeking details and sending messages even to my distant and close friends. Several of my friends have been harassed by him. While talking to one of my friends (currently located in Mumbai) he threatened to continue to harass me until I explain to him why I did not give any details and my contact number, something that I have already made very clear (that I did not do it because I did not wish to and this is something he cannot question me for).
In order to deal with this menace, I complained to the Women Cell (1091) in Delhi. However, the step has not helped me at all. A day after filing the complaint, he sent me messages telling me how useless such pursuits are. To my surprise, he said the police only gave him a missed call and it is he who called back and figured out that the call was from a police station! Lastly, he has been writing me more mails, calling up at my home and sending me messages saying absurd things. He wants to talk to me but I feel threatened by this person and do not wish to talk to him at all. If at all I should speak, I want to do it in the presence of the authorities. I do not trust this person at all and feel I am at risk, based on the kind of activities he has been doing.
I want this harassment to stop. I am unable to concentrate on my work and other things because of his constant mails and calls to me, my parents and my friends. He has been changing his mail ID's and CC No:560/14 Siddharth Rajkonwar Vs. Meesha Arora Page 29 of 33 phone numbers to get in touch with me. I have about 7 different numbers from which he has tried to reach me. Also, he sent me a mail in which he threatened saying he feels exactly like the accused (the murdered) felt, in the JNU murder case where the accused had given a public statement saying he felt cheated and used. The mail from him said he feels something very similar which has made me very scared.
With this complaint, I'm also submitting the strange and very long e-mails received from him. There are many messages he has sent me on facebook as well. If required, I will submit a copy of that as well."
47. It has to be seen whether the offence of defamation is made out or not. The essential ingredients of defamation are as under:
"To constitute "defamation" under Section 499 IPC, there must be an imputation and such imputation must have been made with the intention of harming or knowing or having reason to believe that it will harm the reputation of the person about whom it is made. In essence, the offence of defamation is the harm caused to the reputation of a person. It would be sufficient to show that the accused intended or knew or had reason to believe that the imputation made by him would harm the reputation of the complainant, CC No:560/14 Siddharth Rajkonwar Vs. Meesha Arora Page 30 of 33 irrespective of whether the complainant actually suffered directly or indirectly from the imputation alleged."
48. Now, coming to the merits of the complaint which the complainant alleges to be defamatory. Admittedly, e-mails have been written by the complainant, which have been placed on record by him.
49. In the first para of the complaint (the accused herein), she has stated about her interaction with the complainant herein, and not even a single line is defamatory. The second para talks about the factum of not given the actual number; the complainant sending some job links to the accused, and thirdly sending of number of the HR of some company and calling to the accused herein for telling her the developments. This fact is again admitted by the complainant herein in para 5 & 6 and no part of the complaint (made by accused herein) can be said to defamatory in any manner.
50. In third para of the complaint (the accused herein) has stated that her interaction with the complainant became less frequent due to her joining at Young India Fellowship and she got busy with her hostel life and peer at the fellowship due to which he (complainant herein) started criticizing her in his e-mails for not responding frequently and adequately and also started maligning her fellowship. This is exactly what was averred by the complainant in her complaint and also from the e-mails written by him, CC No:560/14 Siddharth Rajkonwar Vs. Meesha Arora Page 31 of 33 attached by the complainant herein with his complaint. Again, there is no defamatory statement by the accused herein what she has written has also been admitted by the complainant herein in his complaint in various paragraphs.
51. In fourth para, accused herein has stated about blocking the messages of the complainant herein on facebook and gmail, how this can be defamatory is not understandable. The accused has a right not to speak to a person whom she does not like, in no manner she can be forced to speak to a particular person.
52. Again in para No. 5, 6 & 7 of the complaint, the accused herein alleges that the contact details were given by the mother to the complainant. Again no part of this paragraph can be said to be defamatory. In fact, it is also the case of the complainant that he got the contact details from parents.
53. Perusal of the remaining paragraphs also shows that nothing which has been written can be said to be defamatory and all what has been stated by her is narration of the facts.
54. Therefore, on reading entire complaint, there is no defamatory words and statement against him and as the entire complaint is true narration of the incident which have actually occurred between two individuals. There is no mensria which is essential requirement for invoking Section 499 IPC, punishable u/s 500 IPC. Even otherwise, as per CC No:560/14 Siddharth Rajkonwar Vs. Meesha Arora Page 32 of 33 explanation 4 of Section 499 IPC, which says that no imputation is said to harm person's reputation unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person. Admittedly, there is no evidence led by the complainant which shows that the imputation, if any, which harm his reputation has lowered his moral or intellectual character in the eyes of that person except his own evidence, there is no witness who could say that after reading the complaint, the moral and intellectual character of the complainant was lowered in his eyes.
55. The complaint is, accordingly, merit less, and therefore, dismissed.
56. After due compliance, file be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11th day of April, 2016 (ANKUR JAIN) ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE SOUTH WEST DISTRICT DWARKA COURTS : NEW DELHI 11.04.2016 CC No:560/14 Siddharth Rajkonwar Vs. Meesha Arora Page 33 of 33