Delhi District Court
Rajiv Tyagi vs Ajay Negi on 7 May, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. MANU VEDWAN,
DISTRICT JUDGE-2, NORTH EAST DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CS No. 45/2017
CNR No. DLNE01-006202-2016
Rajiv Tyagi
S/o Late Balram Singh Tyagi
R/o House No. 279, near Shiv Mandir,
Mandoli, Delhi. ....Appellant
Versus
1. Ajay Negi
Sub Inspector/In-Charge
E-29, Lajpat Nagar-I,
New Delhi.
2. Jalbir
Assistant Sub Inspector (abated)
3. Sohan Bir
Head Constable
4. Mahesh
Constable
5. Ramesh @ Ramesh Ganja
Constable, Nand Nagri
6. Rambir
Assistant Sub Inspector
7. Balam Singh
Constable
8. Suman
Sub Inspector
RCA No. 45/2017 Rajiv Tyagi Vs. Ajay Negi & Ors. Page No. 1 of 30
All posted at Police Station
Nand Nagari, Delhi. ....Respondents
Date of filing of the present appeal : 31.03.2017 Date of completion of Final Arguments : 07.05.2024 Date of judgment : 07.05.2024 Final Decision : Dismissed JUDGMENT-in-APPEAL
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant (plaintiff, before the Learned Trial Court) against the impugned judgment and decree, dated 08.02.2017, titled as Rajiv Tyagi vs. Ajay Negi & Others in Civil Suit bearing number 5370/2015. The suit of the appellant/plaintiff was dismissed by the Court of the then Learned ACJ/ARC/CCJ, North East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. Therefore, the present appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be denoted as they were before Learned Trial Court. Appellant, herein, Rajiv Tyagi as plaintiff and respondents that are Ajay Negi (Sub Inspector/In-Charge), Jalbir (Assistant Sub Inspector, abated), Sohan Bir (Head Constable), Mahesh (Constable), Ramesh @ Ramesh Ganja (Constable, Nand Nagri), Rambir (Assistant Sub Inspector), Balam Singh (Constable), Suman (Sub Inspector) shall be referred to as defendants.
Plaint
3. The brief facts as disclosed in the plaint are that appellant/plaintiff is a law abiding citizen who used to live peacefully alongwith his widowed mother, younger brother, wife and two infant children. It is stated that the appellant/plaintiff was never involved in any kind of anti-social activities. It is further stated that the appellant/plaintiff used to peacefully run his RCA No. 45/2017 Rajiv Tyagi Vs. Ajay Negi & Ors. Page No. 2 of 30 business under the name and style of M/s. Tyagi Tours and Travels alongwith a Dhaba for his own drivers at 559/1, main Seva Dham Marg, Saboli More, Village Mandoli, Delhi. It is further stated that the appellant/plaintiff had never participated in any kind of criminal or anti- social activities. It is further stated that the appellant/plaintiff from his own earnings arranged the marriage of his younger sister as well as also got himself married as father of appellant/plaintiff had expired on 13.01.2003. It is further stated that the respondents being the officials of Police Station Nand Nagri within which jurisdiction, appellant/plaintiff used to operate his business, started demanding Hafta. It is further stated that the appellant/plaintiff requested them that he did not do any wrongful act hence, he could not fulfill their demands. It is further stated that the appellant/plaintiff was threatened by the abovesaid respondents/defendants in case, their demand would not be fulfiled, he be involved in false criminal cases.
It is further stated that in furtherance of their threats and with plan to damage the reputation of appellant/plaintiff, on 15.09.2005, with the connivance and collusion of respondents/defendants Ajay, Sub Inspector Suman, Constable Balam Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector Rambir Singh arrested the appellant/plaintiff and challaned him under section 107/151 of Code of Criminal Procedure. It is further stated that the contents of Kalandara were absolutely false. It is further stated that the Station House Officer of Police Station Nand Nagri, Delhi forwarded the complaint made by Sub Inspector Ram Singh to Special Executive Magistrate vide DD number 29A, dated 15.09.2005 under section 107/151 of Code of Criminal Procedure by making the appellant/plaintiff as an accused. It is further stated that later on, appellant/plaintiff was released on bail, but, appellant/plaintiff had to be in police custody for one day. It is further RCA No. 45/2017 Rajiv Tyagi Vs. Ajay Negi & Ors. Page No. 3 of 30 stated that the proceedings in aforesaid Kalandara continued till 10.02.2006. It is further stated that no police officials had even appeared before the Court to prove the allegation of the Kalandara. It is further stated that ultimately on 10.02.2006, the Hon'ble Court of Special Executive Magistrate discharged the appellant/plaintiff. It is further stated that because of this illegal detention, the reputation of appellant/plaintiff was badly damaged by the respondents/defendants. It is further stated that inspite of this appellant/plaintiff had made further efforts to continue his business peacefully, but, respondents/defendants again started threatening the appellant/plaintiff. It is further stated that the respondents/defendants without making any payment used to eat food at the hotel.
It is further stated that whenever payment was demanded, they threatened the appellant/plaintiff. It is further stated that the appellant/plaintiff insisted in the month of January 2006 for payment from the respondents/defendants whenever they visited at the hotel against the orders of their meal and dinner. On this, respondents/defendants became annoyed and threatened the appellant/plaintiff. It is stated that on 18.01.2006 in connivance and collusion with each other, respondents/defendants prepared a complaint through Assistant Sub Inspector Jalbir Singh forwarded by Station House Officer, Police Station Nand Nagri and the appellant/plaintiff was put behind the lock up. It is further stated that complainant Mool Chand made a statement before the Special Executive Magistrate that he had never lodged complaint against the appellant/plaintiff. It is further stated that due to illegal detention in jail as well as in police custody, the reputation of appellant/plaintiff was damaged. It is further stated that the illegal detention of the appellant/plaintiff had also affected the smooth operation of the business of the appellant/plaintiff. It is further stated that the appellant/plaintiff is still RCA No. 45/2017 Rajiv Tyagi Vs. Ajay Negi & Ors. Page No. 4 of 30 under terror and fear developed by the respondents/defendants jointly and severally. It is further stated that despite filing of written complaint to the competent authority, no official of police was ready to take any action against the respondents/defendants. It is further stated that the respondents/defendants kept on threatening and putting the pressure upon the appellant/plaintiff. It is therefore requested in the plaint by the appellant/plaintiff that a decree be passed against the respondents/defendants thereby respondents/defendants be directed to pay a sum of rupees 2,00,000/- for defamation and damages with pendente lite and future interest.
Written statement
4. Respondent/defendant number 1 to 7 contested the suit by filing their common written statement in which apart from denying contentions raised by the appellant/plaintiff in his plaint, it is stated that the appellant/plaintiff has not come with clean hands before the Hon'ble Court and suppressed the material facts. It is further stated that no cause of action arose in favour of appellant/plaintiff and against the respondent/defendant number 1 to 7 at any point of time to file the present suit and hence, the suit of appellant/plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. It is further stated that the appellant/plaintiff must have served a legal notice under section 80 of Code of Civil Procedure upon the respondents/defendants before filing the present suit as such the respondents/defendants are police officials and at the time of alleged incident they were on duty. It is further stated that as per sections 138 and 140 of Delhi Police Act present suit is not maintainable. It is further stated that the appellant/plaintiff had filed the present suit against the respondents/defendants on the basis of complaint, dated 23.01.2006, but, in that complaint, name of respondent/defendant RCA No. 45/2017 Rajiv Tyagi Vs. Ajay Negi & Ors. Page No. 5 of 30 was not mentioned. It is further stated that the appellant/plaintiff must obtain the permission from the government prior to file the present suit against the respondents/defendants as all the respondents/defendants are police officers and they were on duty at the time of initiation of proceedings under section 107/151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is stated that the respondents/defendants had not done any illegal act against the appellant/plaintiff. It is further stated that the appellant/plaintiff after consuming liquor used the unparliamentary words for the respondents/defendants. It is stated that as appellant/plaintiff was involved in the illegal activities, he was proceeded under section 107/151 of the Code of Criminal Proceedings. It is further stated that the respondents/defendants never visited the business place of appellant/plaintiff to demand police tax/Hafta. It is further stated stated that the respondents/defendant never threatened the appellant/plaintiff to falsely implicate in any criminal case.
It is further stated that on 14.09.2005, appellant/plaintiff had committed the offence under section 107/151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and on receiving DD number 39-A, respondent/defendant Assistant Sub Inspector Rambir Singh had gone to Mandoli Chungi, Wazirabad where the drunk appellant/plaintiff threatened the passerby and also extended threats to Sub Inspector Suman, Sub Inspector Ajay Singh Negi and Constable Balam. It is further stated that the police had arrested the appellant/plaintiff and produced him before Learned Special Executive Magistrate on 15.09.2005 whereupon he was sent to jail. It is further stated that the police officials were performing their duties as police officials. It is further stated that it might be possible that they had not received the summons or notices issued by Learned Special Executive Magistrate or that they might be busy with their duties, but, it is absolutely false that the RCA No. 45/2017 Rajiv Tyagi Vs. Ajay Negi & Ors. Page No. 6 of 30 respondents/defendants could not appear before the Hon'ble Court intentionally or deliberately. It is further stated that on 18.01.2006, DD number 36 was received by the respondent/defendant and went to Saboli Mode where the other police officials/respondents/defendants were also present and appellant/plaintiff was using unparliamentary words for the people who were moving on road. Appellant/plaintiff also used unparliamentary words for the respondents/defendants as he was drunk. Respondents/defendants had made efforts to make understand the appellant/plaintiff, but, the appellant/plaintiff was adamant to do the illegal act and ready to quarrel with police officials.
It is further stated that Additional Station House Officer, Police Station Nand Nagri also came on the spot and made efforts to let understand the appellant/plaintiff, but, latter was adamant enough. Thereafter Station House Officer gave direction to the respondents/defendants to arrest the appellant/plaintiff in Kalandara under section 107/151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to avoid henious mishappening It is further stated that as per Medico Legal Case of the appellant/plaintiff, there was no injury on the person of appellant/plaintiff It is further stated that the public witness gave statement to the police including one Mool Chand. It is further stated that the said Mool Chand had given the statement before the Learned Special Executive Magistrate concerned under influence of appellant/plaintiff. It is further stated that the respondents/defendants had never illegally detained the appellant/plaintiff in police custody. It is therefore requested that there is no merit in the suit of the appellant/plaintiff and it be dismissed.
Separate written statement was filed by the respondent/defendant number 8 in which apart from denying contentions raised by the appellant/plaintiff in his plaint, it is stated that no notice under section 140 RCA No. 45/2017 Rajiv Tyagi Vs. Ajay Negi & Ors. Page No. 7 of 30 of Delhi Police Act to the effect of filing of present suit was ever served upon the respondent/defendant by the appellant/plaintiff. It is further stated that the suit of the appellant/plaintiff is liable to be dismissed as no specific overt act had been assigned to respondent/defendant number 8 in the entire plaint. 8. It is further stated that respondent/defendant number 8 was newly posted at Police Station Nand Nagri at the time of alleged incident and had absolutely no role in the alleged case. It is also stated that the Kalandra dated 15.09.2005 and the Medico Legal Case of the appellant/plaintiff is sufficient to prove that he was not a peace loving and law abiding citizen. It is further stated that the appellant/plaintiff used to indulge in some wrong activities and because of that only the police officials of Police Station Nand Nagri acted against him. It is further stated that bare perusal of Kalandra vide DD number 39A, dated 15.09.2005 and the Medico Legal Case clearly suggests that the appellant/plaintiff was drunk, quarreling and extending threats to respondent/defendant number 8 for which he was arrested by respondent/defendant number 3 upon the directions of the Station House Officer of Police Station Nand Nagri, who was also present at the time of said occurrence. It is further stated that the respondent/defendant number 8 was never summoned by the Learned Court of Special Executive Magistrate, North East in the said matter. It is further stated that the respondent/defendant number 8 is a witness to the incident, dated 15.09.2005 and not even remotely connected with the incident, dated 18.01.2006. In this regard, it is stated that the Medico Legal Case of appellant/plaintiff and the contents of Kalandara, dated 15.09.2005 are self explanatory to falsify the claim of appellant/plaintiff. It is therefore prayed that the suit of appellant/plaintiff be dismissed.
Replication RCA No. 45/2017 Rajiv Tyagi Vs. Ajay Negi & Ors. Page No. 8 of 30
5. Separate replications to the written statement of respondent/defendant number 1 to 7 and respondent/defendant number 8 were filed which is essentially a reiteration of the averments in the plaint and denial of contentions in the written statement filed on behalf of respondent/defendant number 1 to 7 and respondent/defendant number 8.
Issues
6. Later on, Learned Trial Court vide order dated 16.07.2009, framed the following issues to dispose of the suit of appellant/plaintiff.
i). Whether present suit is barred under section 80 of Code of Civil Procedure? OPD
ii). Whether present suit is barred under section 138 and 140 of Delhi Police Act? OPD
iii) Whether plaintiff is entitled for a decree in the sum of rupees 2,00,000/- on account of defamation and malicious prosecution as claimed? OPP
iv) Relief
7. During the course of proceedings, respondent/defendant number 2 Assistant Sub Inspector Jalbir had expired. However, plaintiff did not file any application for substituting the legal representatives of respondent/defendant number 2 as according to appellant/plaintiff, his right to sue did not survive against legal representatives of respondent/defendant number 2 and accordingly, case against respondent/defendant number 2 stood abated.
Evidence of appellant/plaintiff
8. Thereafter, appellant/plaintiff had led his piece of evidence. Appellant/plaintiff Sh. Rajiv Tyagi has himself entered into the witness RCA No. 45/2017 Rajiv Tyagi Vs. Ajay Negi & Ors. Page No. 9 of 30 box as PW1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW1/A and relied upon the documents i.e. kalandra, dated 15.09.2005 furnished by Ram Bir Singh to the Court of Special Executive Magistrate, District North East, Statement of Assistant Sub Inspector Ram Bir Singh, dated 10.02.2006, ordersheet dated 10.02.2006 of the Court of Sh. Ajit Singh, Special Executive Magistrate, District North East, kalandra, dated 18.01.2006 by Assistant Sub Inspector jalbir Singh with detail of DD number 43 dated 18.01.2006 with statement of Mool Chand S/o Babu Lal, order dated 31.01.2006 passed by the Court of Special Executive Magistrate, District North East, medical prescription of Dr. Rajeshwar Singh, dated 19.01.2006, prescription details of Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, dated 23.01.2006, report of ultrasound issued by Anand Ultrasound, dated 27.01.2006, complaint, dated 23.01.2006 addressed to Deputy Commissioner of Police, North East, Seelampur, Delhi and copy of PAN Card of appellant/plaintiff issued by Income Tax Department (OSR) as Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/9.
PW1 was cross examined at length by Learned Counsel for respondent/defendant number 1 to 7 and Learned Counsel for respondent/defendant number 8. During the course of his cross examination, PW1 submitted that the shop of Tour and Travel is not registered, because, no licence is issued by the authorities. PW1 further submitted that he never sent any notice to the police officials before instituting the present case. PW1 further submitted that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi sealed the dhaba of PW1 and for desealing, he filed writ petition before Hon'ble High Court. PW1 was arrested by the police officials at the place of incident on 18.01.2006. PW1 further submitted that on both dates that is 14.09.2005 and 18.01.2006, he was beaten by the respondents/defendants. PW1 also submitted that in pursuance of the RCA No. 45/2017 Rajiv Tyagi Vs. Ajay Negi & Ors. Page No. 10 of 30 statement of Mool Chand, PW1 was arrested. PW1 further submitted that he had not given any notice under section 80 of Code of Civil Procedure prior to filing the present case.
Sh. Mool Chand was examined as PW2. PW2 in his examination in chief deposed that he knew the appellant/plaintiff as PW2 used to run shop of Panwari near the shop of appellant/plaintiff. PW2 further deposed that at about 10.00 pm, some people started quarreling in front of the shop of PW2. PW2 rushed to the shop of appellant/plaintiff for dialing 100 number and to call the police. The police came but the persons who were quarreling left the spot. PW2 further deposed that the respondents/defendants then forcibly entered in the shop of appellant/plaintiff and lifted him by giving beatings. PW2 further deposed that the respondents/defendants also abused/slapped PW2 and asked to go with them. It is further deposed by PW2 that he was forcibly made to sit by the police in the gypsy. On the way, respondents/defendants continuously slapped/beat PW2. PW2 further deposed that respondents/defendants had also beaten the appellant/plaintiff in Police Post Harsh Vihar. PW2 further deposed that the respondents/defendants in spite of his request, did not inform his family members nor allow him to inform them. PW2 further deposed that the respondents/defendants obtained his signatures on blank papers. Thereafter, PW2 returned back to his home. PW2 further deposed that he appeared before the Special Executive Magistrate at the instance of respondents/defendants on 18.01.2006. PW2 further deposed that he never made any statement to the respondents/defendants against appellant/plaintiff which is already marked as 'D'.
PW2 further deposed that he also stated on oath before the Court of Special Executive Magistrate that he never made any statement against the appellant/plaintiff. Thereafter, PW2 tendered his evidence by way of RCA No. 45/2017 Rajiv Tyagi Vs. Ajay Negi & Ors. Page No. 11 of 30 affidavit which is Ex.P2. PW2 was cross examined at length by Learned Counsel for respondent/defendant number 1 to 7 and Learned Counsel for respondent/defendant number 8. During the course of his cross examination, PW2 submitted that police took appellant/plaintiff Rajiv Tyagi at Police Post alongwith PW2. PW2 further submitted that on 18.01.2006, PW2 also appeared before the Special Executive Magistrate. PW2 further submitted that no enquiry was made from Mr. Guptaji by the police as per the knowledge of PW2 who was also present on the day of incident.
Sh. Bishamher Dayal was examined as PW3. PW3 in his examination in chief deposed that he knew the appellant/plaintiff as on 17.01.2006 at about 10.00 pm, PW3 was present at the shop of appellant/plaintiff for making call. PW3 further deposed that a person came there and asked the appellant/plaintiff to make a 100 number call to police because some persons were quarreling at his shop. Accordingly, the appellant/plaintiff made call to the police twice and thrice. PW3 further deposed that he saw the quarrel at the shop of Panwari. PW3 also made call at 100 number from his mobile phone, but, police did not come. PW3 further deposed that the persons who were quarreling with each other left the spot. When PW3 was ready to leave the place, the police gypsy reached at the shop of Panwari. PW3 further deposed that in his presence, police were abusing the appellant/plaintiff, entered into the shop of appellant/plaintiff and forcibly lifted him. PW3 further deposed that the respondents/defendants slapped the appellant/plaintiff. PW3 further deposed that the respondents/defendants forcibly made to sit the appellant/plaintiff in the gypsy. Thereafter, PW3 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW2/1. PW3 was cross examined at length by Learned Counsel for respondent/defendant number 1 to 7.
RCA No. 45/2017 Rajiv Tyagi Vs. Ajay Negi & Ors. Page No. 12 of 30 Smt. Susheela Devi was examined as PW4. PW4 deposed in her examination in chief that she knew the appellant/plaintiff since 5 years as the appellant/plaintiff is the tenant of PW4. PW4 further deposed that she was having familiar relations with the appellant/plaintiff and used to visit his family. PW4 further deposed that the moral conduct of appellant/plaintiff used to be good. PW4 further deposed that the respondents/defendants forcibly entered into the shop of appellant/plaintiff and lifted him by giving beatings. PW4 further deposed that the appellant/plaintiff was released from the custody of respondents/defendants on 18.01.2006. PW4 further deposed that the respondents/defendants had illegally detained the appellant/plaintiff by involving into false criminal case despite being innocent. PW4 thereafter tendered her evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW4/A. PW4 was cross examined at length by Learned Counsel for respondent/defendant number 1 to 7.
Constable Anil from the Court of Special Executive Magistrate, North-East, Seelampur, Delhi was examined as PW5. PW5 produced the original Kalandra vide DD number 43, dated 18/01/2006. As per ordersheet, dated 31.01.2006, the accused/appellant/plaintiff was discharged after examination of the Investigating Officer, the said details were mentioned in the aforesaid Kalandra consisting of other documents that is DD entry, Medico Legal Case, statement of Sh. Mool Chand, personal search memo and arrest memo of Rajiv, Bail Bond with surety documents and application for compromise are Ex.PW5/A (colly) (OSR). PW5 deposed that the DD number 39-A, dated 15.09.2005 regarding Kalandra was lodged in Police Station Nand Nagri against accused/appellant/plaintiff Rajiv Tyagi, but, the original of the same was not traceable after best efforts. However, the copy of said Kalandra is RCA No. 45/2017 Rajiv Tyagi Vs. Ajay Negi & Ors. Page No. 13 of 30 already on record. PW5 was cross examined by Learned Counsel for respondent/defendant number 1 to 7 and Learned Counsel for respondent/defendant number 8.
Respondents/defendants' evidence
9. After completion of appellant/plaintiff's evidence, respondents/defendants had led their piece of evidence. Respondent/defendant number 8 Inspector Suman Kumar was examined as DW1. In his evidence, DW1 reiterated the same facts as are mentioned by him in his written statement which are not repeated herein. DW1 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.DW1/A. DW1 was cross examined at length by Learned Counsel for appellant/plaintiff.
Respondent/defendant number 7 Head Constable Balam Singh was examined as DW2. DW2 in his evidence had reiterated the same facts as are mentioned by him in his written statement. DW2 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.DW2/A and relied upon the documents i.e. photocopy of complaint, dated 23.01.2006 of appellant/plaintiff as Mark A, photocopy of kalandra, dated 18.01.2006 as Mark B (colly), photocopy of kalandra, dated 15.09.2005 as Mark C (colly) and photocopy of Medico Legal Case of appellant/plaintiff, dated 18.01.2006 as Mark D (colly). DW2 was cross examined at length by Learned Counsel for appellant/plaintiff.
Respondent/defendant number 4 Sh. Mahesh was examined as DW3. DW3 in his examination in chief had reiterated the same facts as are mentioned by him in his written statement. Thereafter, DW3 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.D3 and relied upon the documents i.e. written statement, dated 24.01.2008 filed on behalf of respondent/defendant number 1 to 7 as Ex.DW3/A. DW3 was cross RCA No. 45/2017 Rajiv Tyagi Vs. Ajay Negi & Ors. Page No. 14 of 30 examined by Learned Counsel for appellant/plaintiff.
Respondent/defendant number 5 Sh. Ramesh was examined as DW4. DW4 in his examination in chief had reiterated the same facts as are mentioned by him in his written statement. Thereafter, DW4 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.D4 and relied upon the documents i.e. Kalandra, dated 18.01.2006, copy of DD number 36, dated 17.01.2006, copy of DD number 43, dated 17.01.2006, personal search memo, arrest memo and Medico Legal Case number 184/2006 of appellant/plaintiff as already exhibited as Ex.PW5/A (colly), copy of complaint, dated 23.01.2006 addressed to Deputy Commissioner of Police, Seelampur, Shahdara as already Mark A and written statement, dated 24.01.2008 filed on behalf of respondent/defendant number 1 to 7 as already exhibited as Ex.DW3/A. DW4 was cross examined at length by Learned Counsel for appellant/plaintiff.
Respondent/defendant number 3 Sh. Sohan Bir Singh was examined as DW5. DW5 in his examination in chief had reiterated the same facts as are mentioned by him in his written statement. Thereafter, DW5 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.D5 and relied upon the document i.e. written statement, dated 24.01.2008 filed on behalf of respondent/defendant number 1 to 7 as already exhibited as Ex.DW3/A. DW5 was cross examined at length by Learned Counsel for appellant/plaintiff.
Finding of Learned Trial Court
10. After hearing the final arguments, Learned Trial Court has specifically mentioned that as per section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, no suit shall be filed against a public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such officer in the official capacity until the RCA No. 45/2017 Rajiv Tyagi Vs. Ajay Negi & Ors. Page No. 15 of 30 expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been delivered to him stating the cause of action, name, description and place of residence of appellant/plaintiff. Admittedly, appellant/plaintiff had not served any such notice upon the respondents/defendants. Again, appellant/plaintiff had failed to give any notice under section 142 of the Delhi Police Act to the respondents/defendants thus, both these aspects were mentioned against the appellant/plaintiff. Further, while discussing in detail the aspect of malicious prosecution as well as defamation/reputation, it was observed by the Learned Trial Court that the testimony of witnesses produced on behalf of appellant/plaintiff have miserably failed to substantiate the contents of the plaint in view of the allegations raised. Learned Trial Court has relied upon the catena of judgments of Hon'ble Superior Courts which are not repeated for the sake of brevity and gave the findings that the appellant/plaintiff was not entitled to any relief.
Grounds of appeal
11. Later on, the appellant/plaintiff aggrieved by the aforementioned decision preferred this appeal. Appellant/defendant in his application mentioning the grounds of appeal have once again reiterated the contents of plaint. Alongwith this, it is stated that the order of Learned Trial Court is absolutely unlawful, arbitrary and is a result of non-application of judicial mind. It is stated that the Learned Trial Court had delivered the judgment by self posing presumption and under the assistance of the judgments quoted by the Court in favour of respondents/defendants which are not even remotely connected with the facts and circumstances of the case. The Judgment recently delivered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Subramanium Swamy Vs. Manmohan Singh & Ors. Choudhary Parveen Sultana Vs. RCA No. 45/2017 Rajiv Tyagi Vs. Ajay Negi & Ors. Page No. 16 of 30 State of West Bengal and Shakuntala Bai Vs. Venkata Krishna Reddy which are applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case of appellant/plaintiff, were not considered by the Learned Trial Court. The Learned Trial Court while disposing of the issue number (1) and (2) has not quoted any relevant judgment. It is further stated that while disposing of the issues qua the relief of appellant/plaintiff various judgments were quoted without connecting the relevancy of those judgments in the case of appellant/plaintiff. It is further stated that the law is crystal clear on the issue that if any person exceeded its jurisdiction discharging his public duty as public servant, he shall not be entitled for any of protection under the law including the applicability of section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 138 and 140 of Delhi Police Act, as well as section 80 of Civil Procedure Code.
It is further stated that the appellant/plaintiff had proved that his arrest/confinement into jail was totally wrong and enough to damage his reputation as well as being part of malicious prosecution, entitled the appellant/plaintiff to proceed the suit against the respondents/defendants for malicious prosecution and recovery of damages. It is further stated that the circumstances of the case, itself prove that the respondents/defendants did not act under the colour of their duty, rather, exceeded their jurisdiction for their individual gain, thus, for such kind of action, which was approved by the Court of Special Executive Magistrate to be illegal, the appellant/plaintiff is not entitled for any of the protection, thus, the finding of the court in respect to the Issue number (1) and (2) is liable to be set aside. It is further stated that the Learned Trial Court while holding the respondents/defendants entitle for protection under the law had committed serious error, despite of being proved facts available on record that the respondents/defendants had exceeded their jurisdiction by which they got RCA No. 45/2017 Rajiv Tyagi Vs. Ajay Negi & Ors. Page No. 17 of 30 themselves dis-entitled for any of the protection under the law. It is further stated that the conduct of respondents/defendants of demanding money and not to pay charges of meal could not be said at all to be part of their duty. As such, the impugned order of Learned Trial Court is erroneous and is liable to be set aside. It is further stated that the appellant/plaintiff was released by the Court of Special Executive Magistrate with the order of discharge.
It is further stated that Mool Chand made statement before the Court on oath that he had never lodged any complaint against the appellant/plaintiff. It is further stated that the Learned Trial Court had wrongly held that the suit of appellant/plaintiff is liable to be rejected merely on the ground of protection to the respondents/defendants. It is further stated that the order of Learned Trial Court is also wrong because the respondents/defendant had not taken such a plea nor had proved before the Hon'ble Court the fact that they should be entitled for protection under law, in the circumstances narrated by the appellant/plaintiff in the plaint. It is further stated that from the cross examination of PW1 and other plaintiff's witnesses, there is no such suggestion which indicates that the respondents/defendants were entitled for protection under the law or arrest of the appellant/plaintiff under section 107/151 of Code of Criminal Procedure was part of their duties. As such, in the absence of any evidence, the Court suo-moto in ignorance of the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Arun Jaitley vs. Arvind Kejriwal and also in Four Scandals as well as in the 2G scandals, protected the respondents/defendants who arrested the appellant/plaintiff without any material evidence.
It is further stated that the Learned Trial Court delivered the wrong message against the object of the statute and also frustrate the entire Trust RCA No. 45/2017 Rajiv Tyagi Vs. Ajay Negi & Ors. Page No. 18 of 30 of the individuals including the appellant/plaintiff in the judicial system. It is further stated that the Learned Trial Court while making the decision for dismissal of the suit, had referred the judgment which was not applicable at all to the facts and circumstances of the case. It is not known as to why the judgment which does not touch the facts of the case, has been considered in favour of respondents/defendants. It is further stated that the judgments quoted by the appellant/plaintiff are not being considered by the Court. It is stated that as such, the order of Learned Trial Court is liable to be set aside and the respondents/defendants are liable to be held responsible to pay the compensation claimed by the appellant/plaintiff. It is therefore requested that the impugned judgment and decree, dated 08.02.2017, titled as Rajiv Tyagi vs. Ajay Negi & Others in Civil Suit bearing number 5370/2015 passed by the Court of the then Learned Learned ACJ/ARC/CCJ, North East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi be accordingly set aside.
12 I have heard the arguments from both sides on the grounds of appeals in detail and perused the impugned judgment as well as evidence. Written submissions filed on behalf of appellant/plaintiff also taken into consideration. Despite opportunities given to the respondents/defendants, respondents/defendants failed to file written submissions. Learned Counsel for appellant/plaintiff has also relied upon the following judgments titled as Subramanium Swamy vs. Manmohan Singh & Anr, Civil Appeal No. 193/2012, decided on 31.01.2012, Swatantar Kumar vs. Indian Express Ltd. & Anr, I.A. No. 723/2014 in CS (OS) No. 102/2014, decided on 16.01.2014, Ramher vs. State (Govt. of NCT) of Delhi, Crl. Appeal No. 846/2010 decided on 20.12.2013 and Choudhary Parveen Sultana vs. State of West Bengal & Anr, Criminal Appeal No. 8/2009, decided on RCA No. 45/2017 Rajiv Tyagi Vs. Ajay Negi & Ors. Page No. 19 of 30 07.01.2009. All these judgments have been perused very carefully vis-a-vis facts of the case. These judgments do not apply to the present facts and circumstances as respondents/defendants here are public functionaries and case involved pertains to law and order situation.
Written submissions on behalf of appellant/plaintiff In the written submissions filed on behalf of appellant/plaintiff, it is stated that the contents of the appeal have not been reproduced for the sake of brevity. Thereafter, it is stated that the appellant/plaintiff has examined five witnesses including himself. Sh. Mool Chand has been examined as PW2 who had supported the case of appellant/plaintiff. PW3 and PW4 also supported the case of PW1. It is further stated that the respondents/defendants have relied upon the proceedings before the Special Executive Magistrate. It is further stated that the Learned Trial Court had decided the issue number 1 in favour of respondents/defendants despite the service of notice under section 80 of Code of Civil Procedure upon them. It is also stated that issue number 2 has also been decided by Learned Trial Court in favour of respondents holding that respondents are entitled for protection under section 138/140 of Delhi Police Act. The Learned Trial Court had decided the issue number 3 and 4 jointly by virtue of judgment before the Hon'ble Court citing various judgments. It is stated that the Learned Trial Court had wrongly interpreted the judgments and the judgments relied upon by the Learned Trial Court are instead in the favour of appellant/plaintiff. It is stated that the Learned Trial Court had observed the arrest of the appellant/plaintiff pursuant to kalandra, dated 15.09.2005 and 18.01.2006 as well as despite arrest of appellant later on discharge from the Court of Special Executing Magistrate did not cause any injury to the appellant/plaintiff is not the right conclusion.
It is stated that the Learned Trial Court had concluded it's finding RCA No. 45/2017 Rajiv Tyagi Vs. Ajay Negi & Ors. Page No. 20 of 30 that the protection of respondents/defendants under section 138/140 of Delhi Police Act is available to them even though the appellant was discharged by the Court of competent jurisdiction. It is stated that it is not the rule of law that even if the police officials are acting in excess of their jurisdiction, they should be protected. The offence committed by the officer being beyond their duty would not be entitled for any protection. It is also stated that the corrupt officials/ government employees are not entitled for any protection under any of the provisions of the law. There may be the cases where the power vested in the public servants can be misused or abused which cannot never be said to be the part of official duty required to be performed by him. It is stated that insistence made by the respondents for supply of free dinner and meal cannot be said to be the part of official duty. It is stated that the protection which has been granted under law was granted to the police officials who did not commit any wrong intentionally but under bonafide mistake. It is stated that here the police officials had acted arbitrarily and misused their power. It is stated that the respondents had misused their power openly which has been corroborated by the fact that the appellant was discharged in the kalandra. Reliance is placed upon Suraj Singh vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Deepak Rathore & Anr. vs. Shashi Bhushan Lal Das in RSA No. 1/2016, Imperor vs. Maungbomaung, AIR 1935 Rangoon 263, Swatantar Kumar vs. Indian Express Ltd. & Anr, Subramanium Swami vs. Manmohan Singh & Anr and Bhagwan Prasad Shrivastava vs. M.P. Mishra. All these judgments have been perused carefully. They have been interpreted logically.
13. Analysis and Findings On the basis of aforesaid grounds, these two points for RCA No. 45/2017 Rajiv Tyagi Vs. Ajay Negi & Ors. Page No. 21 of 30 determination were framed which are as follows:- (i) Whether the procedure as prescribed under section 80 of Code of Civil Procedure as well as under section 138 and 140 of Delhi Police Act were followed by the appellant/plaintiff? (ii) Whether the impugned judgment/decree dated 08.02.2017 passed by the then Learned ARC/ACJ is not in accordance with law? Both of these are taken up together being interconnected and having bearing upon each other. Oral arguments heard at length on these points of determination including the appreciation of written submissions.
Firstly, it is to be noted that appellant/plaintiff has to establish his case and he will not automatically succeed merely because of the failure of the defendant to establish his/her defence. A party has to plead the case and produce/adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate his/her submissions made in the plaint. Further, burden of proof as mentioned in Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) that whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person. Section 102 provides upon whom burden of proof lies. It has been provided that the burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail, if no evidence at all where given on either side. Section 103 of the Act provides that the burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person, and lastly Section 104 of the Act provides that the burden of proving any fact necessary to be proved in order to enable any person to give evidence of other fact is on the person who wishes to give such evidence. There is an essential distinction between burden of proof and RCA No. 45/2017 Rajiv Tyagi Vs. Ajay Negi & Ors. Page No. 22 of 30 onus of proof, burden of proof lies upon the person who has to prove a fact and it never shifts, but the onus of proof shifts. Such a shifting of onus is a continuous process in the evaluation of evidence. Also, whether a civil or a criminal case, the anvil for testing of "proved", "disproved" and "not proved", as defined in Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is one and the same. It is the evaluation of the result drawn by the applicability of the rule, which makes the difference. The court has to examine as to whether the person upon whom the burden lies has been able to discharge his burden. In such a suit, plaintiff has to create a high degree of probability so as shift the onus on the defendants. Thereafter, the result of the suit depends upon the evaluation of the result drawn by the applicability of the rule. Reliance is placed upon A. Raghavamma v. A. Chenchamma, AIR 1964 SC 136 and R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple & Anr, (2003) 8 SCC 752.
Secondly, with respect to the sections invoked before the Learned Trial Court as well as in the points of determination here. To start with, section 80 of Code of Civil Procedure read as:-
Section 80 Notice:- (1) [Save as otherwise provided in sub- section (2), no suits [shall be instituted] against the Government (including the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir)] or against a public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity, until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been [delivered to, or left at the office of]
(a) in the case of a suit against the Central Government, [except where it relates to a railway] a Secretary to that Government;
[(b)] in the case of a suit against the Central Government where it relates to railway, the General Manager of that railway;
[(bb) in the case of a suit against the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Chief Secretary to that Government or any other officer authorized by that Government in this behalf;]
(c) in the case of a suit against [any other State Government], a Secretary to that Government or the RCA No. 45/2017 Rajiv Tyagi Vs. Ajay Negi & Ors. Page No. 23 of 30 Collector of the district; *** and, in the case of a public officer, delivered to him or left at his office, stating the cause of action, the name, description and place of residence of the plaintiff and the relief which he claims; and the plaint shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left.
(2) A suit to obtain an urgent or immediate relief against the Government (including the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir) or any public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity, may be instituted, with the leave of the Court, without serving any notice as required by sub-section (I); but the Court shall not grant relief in the suit, whether interim or otherwise, except after giving to the Government or public officer, as the case may be, a reasonable opportunity of showing cause in respect of the relief prayed for in the suit:
Provided that the Court shall, if it is satisfied, after hearing the parties, that no urgent or immediate relief need be granted in the suit, return the plaint for presentation to it after complying with the requirements of sub-section (1). (3) No suit instituted against the Government or against a public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity shall be dismissed merely by reason of any error or defect in the notice referred to in sub-section (I), if in such notice
(a) the name, description and the residence of the plaintiff had been so given as to enable the appropriate authority or the public officer to identify the person serving the notice and such notice had been delivered or left at the office of the appropriate authority specified in sub-section (1), and
(b) the cause of action and the relief claimed by the plaintiff had been substantially indicated.] Section 138 of Delhi Police Act, 1978 read as:- No police officer to be liable to penalty or damage for act done in good faith in pursuance of duty:- No police officer shall be liable to any penalty or to payment of any damages on account of an act done in good faith in pursuance of or purported to be done in pursuance of any duty imposed or any authority conferred on him by any provision of this Act or any other law for the time being in force or any rule, regulation, order or direction made or given thereunder.
Section 140 of Delhi Police Act 1978 read as:-Bar to suits and prosecutions:- (1) In any case of alleged offence by a police officer or other person, or of a wrong alleged to have been done by such police officer or other person, by any act done under colour of duty or authority or in excess of an such duty or authority, or wherein it shall appear to the court that the offence or wrong if committed or done was RCA No. 45/2017 Rajiv Tyagi Vs. Ajay Negi & Ors. Page No. 24 of 30 of the character aforesaid, the prosecution or suit shall not be entertained and if entertained shall be dismissed if it is instituted, more than three months after the date of the act complained of:Provided that any such prosecution against a Police Officer or other person may be entertained by the court, if instituted with the previous sanction of the Administrator, within one year from the date of the offence. (2) In the case of an intended suit on account of such a wrong as aforesaid, the person intending to sue shall give to the alleged wrongdoer not less than one month's notice of the intended suit with sufficient description of the wrong complained of, and if no such notice has been given before the institution of the suit, it shall be dismissed. (3) The plaint shall set forth that a notice as aforesaid has been served on the defendant and the date of such service and shall state what tender of amends, if any, has been made by the defendant and a copy of the said notice shall be annexed to the plaint endorsed or accompanied with a declaration by the plaintiff of the time and manner of service thereof.
According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary to 'purport' in this context means to 'be intended to seem'. Applying this meaning, the words 'any acts purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity' mean any act 'intended to seem' to be done by him in his official capacity. If the act was one such as is ordinarily done by the officer in the course of his official duties, and he considered himself to be acting as a public officer and desired other persons to consider that, he was so acting, the act clearly 'purports to be done in his official capacity' within the ordinary meaning of the term 'purport'. If the suit is filed against a public officer, then notice is mandatory only when the suit is in respect of an act purporting to be done in his official capacity. A plaintiff intended to institute a suit against the government has two options before him. He may file a suit after serving two months' notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure or he may file a suit without serving a notice. But in the latter event, he may satisfy the court that an urgent and immediate relief was required and he must also obtain previous leave of the court. In the event of the first course being adopted, the suit cannot be filed before the RCA No. 45/2017 Rajiv Tyagi Vs. Ajay Negi & Ors. Page No. 25 of 30 expiry of two months of giving of the notice. This explains the reason for using the word 'shall' in sub-section (1) of section 80 by Parliament. However, in the second case, he has the choice to file the suit without giving the requisite notice, but only after obtaining leave of the court.
It is for this purpose, the word 'may' has been used in section 80(2). Sub-section (2) of section 80 of the code mellows down the rigours of the requirement of service of notice for suits against Government, by providing that the requirement can be dispensed with the leave of the Court truly when urgent and immediate relief is to be granted. However, it has been laid down that before granting relief, opportunity should be given to the Government to show cause. The object of the notice required under the section is to give the government or the public officer concerned, an opportunity to reconsider the legal position and to make amends or settle the claim, if so advised, without litigation. The sexton has been enacted as a measure of public policy, with the object of ensuring that before a suit is instituted against the government or a public officer, the government or the officer concerned is afforded an opportunity to scrutinise the claim and if it be found a just claim, to take immediate action and thereby avoid unnecessary litigation and save public time and money by settling the claim without driving the person who has issued the notice to restitute the suit involving considerable expenditure and delay. Nevertheless, the notice must convey to its recipient sufficient information to enable him to consider the claim. It is settled proposition of law that the provision under section 80, Code of Civil Procedure is mandatory but the right can be waived by the party for whose benefit it has been provided; and no suit can be instituted without service of notice.
In the instant case, the respondents/defendants specifically pleaded that the acts were done in their official capacity and, therefore notice under RCA No. 45/2017 Rajiv Tyagi Vs. Ajay Negi & Ors. Page No. 26 of 30 section 80 was necessary. Further, it was never alleged by the appellant/plaintiff that he was put under the detention/custody without initiation of any type of legal proceedings. Instead, it is itself stated by the appellant/plaintiff that he was proceeded/prosecuted on two successive occasions by the respondents/defendants in consultation with their senior officers. Though, later on, the appellant/plaintiff was discharged by an appropriate order of the Court of competent jurisdiction. In these overall circumstances, it cannot be said/or say comprehended that the respondents/defendants have acted not in accordance of their imposed duties. They may not be found correct in arriving of the conclusion of initiation of prosecution/making full proof case/doing effective investigations, but it cannot be said that they had acted beyond their course of duties assigned to them by law. Therefore, it seems that necessarily there is requirement of following the provisions of section 80 of Code of Civil Procedure alongwith section 138 and 140 of Delhi Police Act latter being similarly worded. Reliance is placed upon Ebrahimbhai v State, AIR 1975 Bom 13, Kishan Prasad v UOI, AIR 1960 Cal 264, Hemant Sharma v State of Himachal Pradesh, CMPMO No. 305/2019, decided on 04.07.2019, A Sarangadharn v Dr Vijayan, AIR 1999 Ker 310, Dattatraya v Annappa, AIR 1938 Bom 352 (FB), Jogendra Nath Roy v Price, (1897) 24 Cal 584, Bakshi Gulam v GM Sadiq, AIR 1968 J&K 98, BL Shukla v Fatmabai, AIR 1976 Guj 29, State of Andhra Pradesh v Pioneer Builders, AIR 2007 SC 113 and Mulla Code of Civil Procedure, Twentieth Edition Volume 3. Further, even otherwise, in a suit to claim damages for abuse of process of law, it must be established that the person who set the machinery of law into motion is not only actuated by malice with the accused but also he acted in putting the machinery of law into motion without any reasonable and probable cause, which is the essential element RCA No. 45/2017 Rajiv Tyagi Vs. Ajay Negi & Ors. Page No. 27 of 30 to get a decree for damages for such malicious prosecution. Therefore, the burden of proof as regards aforesaid essentials always rest upon the plaintiff and it never shifts throughout the trial. To lodge an First Information Report which is not wrong to the knowledge of the person who files it in the police station, can never be said to be a wrong because whether it results in conviction or acquittal is absolutely immaterial to determine question whether the doer of such an act can be said to be wrongdoer such the bond of necessity between the wrongdoer and the remedy of wrong does not exist in the present case.
Also, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the defendant could have perceived results of the prosecution launched on his first information report, which resulted in initiation of trial. He could not have known in advance whether the prosecution launched his information would result in conviction or acquittal of the accused (plaintiff). Reliance is placed upon Amar Singh v. Bhagwati, AIR 2001 Raj. 14, Shiv Shankar Patel v. Smt. Phulki Bai, A.I.R. (2007) (NOC) 1207 (Chh.). Doubtless the right to the enjoyment of a private reputation, unassailed by malicious slander is a ancient origin, and is necessary to human society. A good reputation is an element of personal security, and is protected by the Constitution equally with the right to the enjoyment of life, liberty and property as per D.F. Marion v Davis. In Blackstone's, Commentary of the Laws of England, Vol. 1, 4th Edn. it has been stated that the right of personal security consists in a person's legal and uninterrupted enjoyment of his life, his limbs, his body, his health and his reputation. Also, the life does not merely connote animal existence or a continued drudgery though the life. Right to reputation is a personal/natural right. Reliance is also placed upon Subramanium Swamy vs. Union of India, decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 13.05.2016.
RCA No. 45/2017 Rajiv Tyagi Vs. Ajay Negi & Ors. Page No. 28 of 30 Adverting back to the facts of the case, appellant/plaintiff has basically raised that the police proceedings initiated by the respondents/defendants on the basis of the kalandras dated 15.09.2005 and 18.01.2006 defamed him to the extent that he sought damages by filing the present case before the Learned Trial Court. Appellant/plaintiff has appeared in the witness box and deposed that the contents of both the kalandras are bundle of false and defamatory facts created by the respondents/defendants in collusion with themselves and their seniors. The contents of the kalandras and other documents are not repeated for the sake of brevity. It is the case of appellant/plaintiff himself that these documents were prepared by respondent/defendant number 2 in his official capacity. Though, the plaintiff had agitated the facts surrounding the preparation of the kalandras stating that neither he was drunk nor he had misbehaved as mentioned in those kalandras. But, at the same time, it needs to be pin pointed that in Medico Legal Case number 184/06 it is indicated that there is smell of alcohol present in the appellant/plaintiff on 18.01.2006. Further, PW2 and PW3 appeared as plaintiff's witnesses though had claimed in their evidence that some people were quarreling in front of the shop of PW2, but, neither the name/number of these persons were disclosed nor any relevant evidence regarding the presence of these alleged persons at an appropriate time was placed before the Court to substantiate the sequence of events as alleged by PW1. Apart from this, it is to be mentioned/clarified that PW2 who was highlighted as one of the most important witness had admittedly never made any complaint regarding the ill behaviour of the respondents/defendants before any authority. With respect to PW3, he himself submitted in his cross examination that there was no enmity between appellant/plaintiff and respondents/defendants and testimony of PW4 seems more of interested RCA No. 45/2017 Rajiv Tyagi Vs. Ajay Negi & Ors. Page No. 29 of 30 witness being known to appellant/plaintiff. Also, it needs to be pointed out that she had claimed that no public person was present when respondents/defendants were beating the appellant/plaintiff while, PW2 and PW3 had claimed otherwise. Thus, it is not wrong to conclude that there was no reasonable or probable cause for the respondents/defendants to file/register the complaint against the appellant/plaintiff on the relevant/aforesaid dates. All these submissions/testimonies/contradictions raised on behalf of appellant/plaintiff when observed in the light of the overall circumstances including the initiation of the prosecution, the circumstances/sequence of events/prosecution/proceedings as such cannot be seemed defamatory only for the reason that the appellant/plaintiff had been discharged/acquitted in those proceedings.
14. In view of my foregoing observations on all the issues, appeal of the appellant/plaintiff deserves to be dismissed. The same is accordingly hereby dismissed.
15. TCR be sent back with the copy of this judgment.
16. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
MANU Digitally signed by
MANU VEDWAN
VEDWAN Date: 2024.05.10
16:18:03 +0530
(Manu Vedwan)
District Judge-02 (North East District)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
Announced in the open court
today i.e. 07th April, 2024
RCA No. 45/2017 Rajiv Tyagi Vs. Ajay Negi & Ors. Page No. 30 of 30