Delhi District Court
Sanjeev Gera vs Sangeeta Gera on 23 January, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SANJAY GARG-I :
SPECIAL JUDGE-IV, (PC ACT) CBI: DELHI.
CR No. 46/2015
ID No: 02401R0710302015
Sanjeev Gera,
R/o 1209, Mahagun Maple,
Sector-50, Noida, U.P. ........Petitioner
Versus
Sangeeta Gera,
R/o C-88, Sector-33,
Police Station Sector-24,
Noida, UP ........Respondent
Date of Institution : 22.12.2015
Date of Arguments : 21.01.2016
Date of Judgment : 23.01.2016
ORDER
1. The order impugned vide this petition is dated 20.11.2015 of the Ld. Trial Court vide which the complaint filed by petitioner u/s 200 Cr.P.C. was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner and respondent got married on 06.07.1999 at Amritsar. Petitioner had a transferable job and gone to different locations. Due to his work in Mumbai, he shifted to Mumbai and purchased a flat on a joint name with respondent in March, 2005. After marriage relation between them turned sour and strained. Because of the dispute and differences between them it led to an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage which led to filing of divorce petition by petitioner in February, 2006 at Mumbai. Respondent filed reply to this petition CR No. 46/2015 Sanjeev Gera Vs. Sangeeta Gera Page No. 1 of 6 making slander, scandalous allegations, abusive language and wild charges without any basis whatsoever to damage his reputation. By the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court the pending litigation between the parties was transferred to Tis Hazari Courts.
3. The averments which are bothering petitioner are mentioned in the complaint. The averments of respondent mentioned in para 3 & 4(r) of her reply are reproduced as under:-
"3. It is submitted that the respondent had conceived thrice but due the acute mental torture by the petitioner and his mother an on account of lack of proper nutrition, the respondent had miscarriages on all the three occasions.
4(r) That it's the petitioner who has been threatening to respondent if she disclosed about the ill treatment inflicted on her by him and his mother to hers sister or brother, he would kill her."
4. Respondent also filed a criminal complaint under DV Act at Noida. The said averments mentioned in para-4 of petition u/s 12 of D.V. Act are as under:-
"After buying the flat, the respondent no. 2 & 3 shifted to Mumbai and started torturing physically and mentally to the complainant, during those days complainant was pregnant. Because of cruelty, bad behavior, physically assaulted and physically and mentally harassment, resulted in miscarriage of the complainant."
5. In the background of these allegations, the Ld. Trial Court was requested to take cognizance of the offence u/s 500 IPC against the respondent. Petitioner examined himself as PW-1 in CR No. 46/2015 Sanjeev Gera Vs. Sangeeta Gera Page No. 2 of 6 pre-summoning evidence reiterating the allegations made in the complaint. After recording pre-summoning evidence, hearing arguments on summoning of respondent, vide impugned order this complaint was dismissed, hence this petition.
6. Heard arguments of Sh. Rishi Kapoor, Ld. counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Geeta A. Kumar, Ld. counsel for respondent. Perused the trial court record and various grounds raised in the petition.
7. Ld. counsel for the petitioner has contended that Ld. MM erred in appreciating the law on criminal defamation while applying the exceptions to Section 499 IPC. It has been contended that the Ld. trial court failed to appreciate that exception (viii) to Section 499 IPC only applies if the accusations are made in good faith but allegations made by respondent are not in good faith as respondent has withdrawn her complaint made under Domestic Violence Act after getting Rs. 2,00,000/- per month as maintenance. This clearly suggests that the respondent had only filed the said complaint under Domestic Violence Act to pressurize and coerce the petitioner for harassing him by making false allegations. It has been contended that the trial court has failed to appreciate that the mens rea contemplated under Section 499 IPC is not limited to intent rather it encompasses in its scope either knowledge or reason to believe. In support of his submissions, Ld. counsel for petitioner has relied upon Sanjay Mishra Vs. Govt. (NCT of Delhi) [2012 SCC Online Del. 1779], Mohanadevi Vs. Dr. C. V. Ranjan [2015 SCC OnLine Mad 3395].
8. Per contra, Ld. counsel for respondent submitted that all the allegations made by respondent in reply to divorce petition filed CR No. 46/2015 Sanjeev Gera Vs. Sangeeta Gera Page No. 3 of 6 by petitioner as well as under Domestic Violence Act application are true and truth is first exception as provided under Section 499 IPC. It has been stated that none of the allegations made by respondent are scandalous or libelous in nature and she has made true averments in her reply to divorce petition as well as in her application under Domestic Violence Act. It has been stated that whatever has been stated by the respondent that has been said in the court proceedings and does not amount to publication.
9. Whether allegations made in a dispute before the court is publication or not, the court in Sanjay Mishra (supra) has dealt with this issue. The relevant para 10 & 11 of it is as follows:-
"10. With regard to the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the pleadings made in all the cases are confidential and the proceedings were held in camera and hence there was no question of the respondent no.2 and her daughter being defamed, it would suffice to say that the legal proposition in this regard is settled. The replication filed in the Court forming part of judicial record, is a public document and thus pleadings amount to publication of the defamatory statements made by the petitioner.
11. In Sandyal v. Bhaba Sundari Debi; 7 Ind.
Cas. 803 : 15 C.W.N. 995 : 12 C.L.J. 31 the learned Judges, following the case of Augada Ram Shaha v. Nemai Chand Shaha; 23 C. 867 :
12 Ind. Dec. (n.s.) 576, held that defamatory statements made in the written statement of a party in a judicial proceedings are not absulutely privileged in this court, and that a qualified privilege in this regard cannot be claimed in respect of such statements, unless they fall within the Exceptions to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. Undisputedly, the case of the CR No. 46/2015 Sanjeev Gera Vs. Sangeeta Gera Page No. 4 of 6 petitioner was not in any of these Exceptions."
10. The essential ingredients of offence under Section 499 IPC are also discussed by the court in Sanjay Mishra (supra) in para 6, which are as follows:
"The criminal law on defamation has been codified and is contained in Section 499 to 502 IPC of the Indian Penal Code. For an offence of defamation as defined under Section 499 IPC, three essential ingredients are required, to be fulfilled as laid down in the case of Standard Chartered Bank Vs. Vinay Kumar Sood, 2010CRiL.J 1277:-
i. Making or Publishing any imputation
concerning any person;
ii. Such imputation must have been made by
words either spoken or intended to be read or by signs or by visible representations. Iii. The said imputation must have been made with the intention to harm or with knowledge or having reason to believe that it will harm the reputation of the person concerned."
11. The 8th exception under Section 499 IPC provide 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. In illustration, it is provided that if A in good faith accuse Z before a Magistrate, the same falls within this exception.
12. The three set of allegations reproduced above, alleged to be defamatory by the petitioner are made by respondent in judicial proceedings pending between the parties. The first two sets of allegations are made by respondent while defending divorce petition filed by petitioner against her. One of the allegation made by respondent is that she had miscarriage on three occasions due to CR No. 46/2015 Sanjeev Gera Vs. Sangeeta Gera Page No. 5 of 6 acute mental torture by petitioner and his mother. Petitioner has no where denied these miscarriages or has not produced any evidence to make these allegations patently false. Similar are the averments made by respondent in her Domestic Violence Act petition. Divorce petition is pending between the parties and out come of this petition will decide whether allegations made by respondent in her reply are found to be scandalous, libelous etc. The other grievance of the petitioner is that Domestic Violence Act petition was withdrawn by the respondent. From this it cannot be presumed that all allegations made by respondent in her petition are scandalous and false.
13. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I agree with the view taken by Ld. trial court that there is no defamatory overtone in the alleged averments made by the respondent in the legal proceedings between the parties arising out of the matrimonial dispute. I find no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order. The petition is,hereby found without merits and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
14. The trial court record along with copy of this order be sent back.
15. This Revision Petition File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open
Court on 23rd Jan. 2016 (SANJAY GARG-I)
SPECIAL JUDGE-IV, CBI (PC Act)
TIS HAZARI COURTS,DELHI
CR No. 46/2015 Sanjeev Gera Vs. Sangeeta Gera Page No. 6 of 6