Delhi District Court
Shri Joginder Singh vs Ms Monika Garg on 28 February, 2022
THE COURT OF MS. SHIVALI SHARMA
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE03: WEST DISTRICT
TIS HAZARI COURT: DELHI
Civ. DJ No. 612541/16
In the matter of:
Shri Joginder Singh
S/o Shri Randhir Singh
R/o C29, Om Vihar,
Uttam Nagar
New Delhi 110 059. ..............Plaintiff
Versus
Ms Monika Garg
W/o Shri Vilamb Garg,
R/o Flat no. 512,Sector 10,
PocketII, Narela,
Delhi 110 040.
Also at:
1063, GUD Mandi,
Near Bikaneri Sweats,
Sonepat,
Haryana.
Also at:R/o WZA85, Om Vihar,
Uttarm Nagar,New Delhi.
....... Defendant
Date of institution : 18.04.2011
Date of Decision : 28.02.2022
JUGDMENT
Suit for recovery of damages of Rs. 10,00,000/
1.The present suit for recovery of damages of Rs. 10 lacs is CS: 612541/16 Joginder Singh vs Monika Garg Page no.1 of 16 filed by plaintiff against defendant seeking damages for loss of reputation of the plaintiff due to defamatory allegations made by the defendant.
PLAINTIFF'S CASE:
2. The case of the plaintiff as per plaint is that he is a law abiding citizen of India and a man of reputation and is known for his helping and cooperative nature in his locality. The defendant, in one of her litigation going on with her husband Shri Vilamb Garg, leveled some false and baseless allegations against the plaintiff, who has nothing to do with the personal family affairs of the defendant and her husband. The defendant started talking personally to the persons of the plaintiff's circle due to which the plaintiff is suffered a lot. The defendant leveled false and frivolous allegations without any basis with malafide intentions to harm the reputation of the plaintiff.
3. The defendant made defamatory allegations against the plaintiff so as to lower his credibility. Since that day constant inquires are being made from the plaintiff with regard to the contents of her averments which are per se defamatory and has also lowered the reputation of the plaintiff. The plaintiff, being aggrieved with the said act of the defendant, got served a legal notice dated 18.02.2011 calling upon her to tender and publish unconditional apology withdrawing all false and frivolous allegations leveled against him and to compensate him to the tune of Rs.
25,00,000/. The defendant received the said notice and instead of complying with the notice sent a false and frivolous reply dated 24.02.2011 denying the contents of the notice. Hence, the present suit is filed seeking following reliefs: (1) Issuing necessary directions to the defendant for tendering unconditional written apology in favour of the plaintiff through publication in nationalized newspaper withdrawing all false and baseless CS: 612541/16 Joginder Singh vs Monika Garg Page no.2 of 16 allegations leveled against him.
(2) Directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/ to the plaintiff towards damages on account of humiliation and loss of reputation due to false imputation levelled by defendant. (3) Costs of the suit.
Defendant's case:
4. Defendant filed her WS wherein the suit has been preliminarily objected to on the ground that the same is filed without any cause of action and is liable to be dismissed u/o VII rule 11 CPC. The suit of the plaintiff is also not maintainable as the defendant has not made any defamatory allegations against the plaintiff in public. The plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts from the court. The plaintiff is a property dealer and has evil eyes on the property of defendant and her husband and he succeeded in selling 100 square yards of property of her husband to one Shri Satish Chand Jain on 27.03.2006. It is the plaintiff who beat the prestige of the defendant from time to time. Since the inception of her marriage, the plaintiff and his associates were adamant to usurp the property belonging to the mother in law of the defendant due to which the mother in law of the defendant executed a registered WILL in favour of the defendant and her husband in respect of property admeasuring 250 square yards situated at Om Vihar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi, with the sole motive to protect the property from the ill will of the plaintiff and his associates.
5. Due to serious condition of the husband of the defendant he was admitted in Dr Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital, Rohini on 24.05.2007 but in absence of the defendant the plaintiff and his associates took away husband of the defendant without seeking discharge from the hospital. On 13.11.2007, husband of the defendant was admitted in Satya Kiran Nasha Mukti Kendra, Nangal Kalan, Sonepat, Haryana. The plaintiff and his associates again got him released on 24.11.2007 by playing fraud. On CS: 612541/16 Joginder Singh vs Monika Garg Page no.3 of 16 19.02.2008, the defendant was beaten by her husband under the instigation of the plaintiff and his associates and was threatened by the plaintiff to encroach the house property. On 21.02.2008, defendant made a written complaint to Mahila Ayog against the plaintiff, his associates and her husband who was hand in gloves with the plaintiff and had levelled false allegations against the defendant that she had eloped with her brother in law. Plaintiff has filed the present false and fabricated suit with the sole intention of extorting huge amount of money from the defendant.
Replication:
6. Plaintiff filed the replication to the written station wherein he reiterated the averments made in the plaint and denied the allegations made in the WS except the admissions made.
ISSUES:
7. After completion of pleadings, vide order dated 22.02.2012, following issues were framed:
(i) Whether there is no cause of action accrued to the plaintiff?OPD.
(ii) Whether defendant has made any defamatory allegations against the plaintiff in public or in statement in court of law?OPP.
(iii) Whether the plaintiff has concealed the material facts from the court?OPD.
(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of damages for Rs. 10 lacs as prayed or to any other amount?OPP.
(v) Relief. CS: 612541/16 Joginder Singh vs Monika Garg Page no.4 of 16 PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE:
8. Plaintiff examined himself as PW1 in his evidence. He stated and reiterated on oath the averments made in the plaint in his affidavit which is Ex.PW1/A. He relied upon the following documents.
(i) Ex.PW1/2: Copy of legal notice dated 18.02.2011 sent by the plaintiff to the defendant.
(ii) Ex.PW1/3: Postal Receipt in respect of legal notice Ex.PW1/2.
(iii)Ex.PW1/4: Copy of reply dated 24.02.2011 given by the defendant to the legal notice of the plaintiff dated 18.02.2011.
(iv)Mark PX1: Copy of complaint dated 17.06.2010 made by the defendant to the police officials levelling allegations against the plaintiff.
(v)Ex.PW1/5:
9. Plaintiff/PW1 was duly cross examined at length by Ld. Counsel for the defendant.
10. PW2 Sh. Gulshan Kumar is a summoned witness being the Ahlmad in the court of Sh. Dinesh Bhatt, Ld. Judge, Family Courts, West District. He produced the summoned record of case bearing no. 148/2010 titled as Monika Garg Vs. Vilamb Garg. The photocopy of complaint dated 17.06.2010 filed by Monika Garg before Commissioner of Police, ACP, DCP, President Mahila Udyog was a part of the said file and is marked as Mark A.
11. In his cross examination, he deposed that the said case was filed on 17.05.2010 and is still pending.
Defendant's evidence: CS: 612541/16 Joginder Singh vs Monika Garg Page no.5 of 16
12. Defendant preferred not to lead any evidence in this matter and her evidence was closed on the statement of her AR recorded 05.03.2019.
13. Final arguments have been heard and record has been carefully perused. Written submissions filed by the plaintiff are also duly perused.
FINDINGS
14. Now I shall proceed to give my issue wise findings: ISSUE No 1: Whether there is no cause of action accrued to the plaintiff?OPD.
15. The onus to prove this issue was on the defendant. Cause of action is a bundle of facts which if, unrebutted will entitle the plaintiff to the reliefs being sought in the suit. It is a settled law that the cause of action for filing a suit has to be gathered only from the plaint and the documents annexed therewith. The defence of the defendant has no bearing on the cause of action for filing of the suit.
16. The case of the plaintiff as per the plaint is that the defendant, in one of her litigation with her husband Sh. Vilamb Garg, had leveled false and baseless allegations against the plaintiff. She also started talking personally to the plaintiff's circle repeating the said false allegations due to which harm was caused to the reputation of the plaintiff in the eyes of his known persons. Defendant had made reckless and defamatory allegations against the plaintiff to lower his credibility thereby causing him to be defamed. These allegations were made by the defendant against the plaintiff knowing and having reasons to believe that they were CS: 612541/16 Joginder Singh vs Monika Garg Page no.6 of 16 false imputations likely to harm the reputation of the plaintiff, his moral and intellectual character, directly and indirectly. Accordingly, the defendant is alleged to have committed an offence of defamation punishable under section 500 of IPC for which plaintiff is seeking damages to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/ in the present suit. From the contents of the plaint clearly cause of action for filing the present suit is reflected.
17. Although these averments made by the plaintiff in his plaint have been denied by the defendant in her written statement, however, such denial is immaterial while deciding whether any cause of action accrued to the plaintiff for filing of the present suit.
18. Since, the plaint clearly reflects the cause of action for filing of the present suit, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue no. (ii) Whether defendant has made any defamatory allegations against the plaintiff in public or in statement in court of law?OPP.
19. The onus to prove this issue was on the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant has made defamatory allegations against him in public as well as in her complaint made before the court thereby lowering his image/credibility in the eyes of his known persons. Accordingly, defendant is alleged to be guilty of the offence of defamation.
20. Before deciding this issue, it would be apposite to discuss the law relating to defamation in India. Defamation is an act of communicating false statements about a person that injure the reputation of that person when observed through the eyes of an ordinary man. Any false and unprivileged statement published or spoken deliberately, intentionally, CS: 612541/16 Joginder Singh vs Monika Garg Page no.7 of 16 knowingly and with an intention to damage someone's reputation is defamation. A man's reputation is treated as his property and such damage is punishable by law.
21. Defamation is an offence both under Civil and Criminal Law. In Civil Law, defamation is punishable under the law of torts by imposing punishment in the form of damages to be awarded to the claimant. Under the criminal law, defamation is punishable with simple imprisonment upto two years or with fine or with both.
22. In a suit for damages on account of defamation, there are certain requirements which should be fulfilled which are as under:
(i) There must be a defamatory statement. Defamatory content is one calculated to injure the reputation of a person or a class of person by exposing them to hatred, contempt or ridicule. The test whether it damages the reputation of the claimant has to be calculated from the eyes of a common man and his comprehension of the matter.
(ii) The statement must purport to a person or a class of persons and should not be a general statement.
(iii) It must be published either in oral or written form.
(iv) Unless the content is made available to a third person, there can be no defamation.
23. Once all these conditions are satisfied, a successful defamation suit subsists.
24. The term defamation is not defined in CPC, however, Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 defines the offence of defamation and its exception. As per the said section, words or signs imputed, intending to harm, or in the knowledge that such imputation will cause harm to CS: 612541/16 Joginder Singh vs Monika Garg Page no.8 of 16 the reputation of a person, are defamatory in nature. As per explanation one to section 499, it may amount to defamation if anything is imputed against a deceased person. Explanation two provides that the class of person shall include a company or association. Explanation three provides that an imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically may amount to defemation. As per explanation four, it is not defamation unless the defamatory statement directly or indirectly lowers the moral or intellectual character or his respect or that of his caste in the estimation of others.
25. Persons who make defamatory statement are exempted from punishment if they fall in one of the ten exemptions provided in Section
499. They are:
(i) Imputation of truth which public good requires to be made or published.
(ii) Any opinion made in good faith regarding the conduct of the public servant in discharge of his public function.
(iii) Any opinion made in good faith respecting a conduct of a person and touching a public question.
(iv) Publication of true reports of proceedings of a court or the result of the proceedings.
(v) Any opinion made in good faith regarding the merits of any civil or criminal case decided by court of justice or the conduct of any parson as a party, witness or agent to that case and no further.
(vi) Opinions on merits of public performance.
(vii) Censure passed in good faith by a person in lawful authority.
(viii)Accusation of offence made in good faith to authorized persons such as a complaint made to a magistrate or police officials, conduct of servant reported to his master etc. CS: 612541/16 Joginder Singh vs Monika Garg Page no.9 of 16
(ix) Imputation made in good faith by a person for protection of his or other's interests or for a public good.
(x) Cautions conveyed to one person against another are not defamation if it is intended for the good of the conveyed person or any other person or for public good.
26. While discussing the law relating to civil defamation, Hon' ble Patna High court in case titled as Pandey Surender Nath Singha Vs. Bageshwari Prasad AIR 1961 PAT 164 observed:
"11. Speaking generally every man is entitled to his good name and to the esteem in which he is held by others and has a right to claim that his reputation shall not be disparaged by defamatory statements made about him to a third person or persons without lawful justification or excuse. Reputation and honour are no less precious to good men than bodily safety and freedom. In some cases, they may be dearer than life itself. Thus, it is need for the peace and wellbeing of civilized common wealth that the law should protect the reputation as well as the person of the citizen.
12. In India, both libel and slander are criminal offences. We are, however, not here con caned with libel as a criminal offence, but only with civil wrong and the right to redress it in a civil action.
13. A defamatory statement is one which has a tendency to injure the reputation of the person to whom it refers: which tends, that is to say, to lower him in the estimation of right thinking members of the society generally and in particular to cause him to be shunned or avoided or regarded with feeling of hatred, contempt, ridicule, fear, dislike or disesteem, or to convey an imputation on him, disparaging or injurious to him in his office, profession, calling, trade or business. Defamation, therefore, is the wrong done by a person to another's reputation by words, signs or visible representations. CS: 612541/16 Joginder Singh vs Monika Garg Page no.10 of 16
14. The test of defamatory nature of a statement, therefore, is its tendency to excite against the plaintiff, the adverse opinion or feelings of other persons. The statement is judged by the standard of opinion which prevails among ordinary, right thinking members of the society, reasonable people of time and place, and not the opinion which prevailed in another time or in another country or among a special class or abnormally constituted people. Hence, the test is an objective one, and it is no defense to say that the statement was not intended to be defamatory or was uttered by way of a joke. As rightly said: "no one can caste about fire brands and death, and then escape for being responsible by saying he was in sport."
15. A wrong of defamation, as such, consists in a publication of a false and defamatory statement concerning another person without lawful justification."
27. In Ram Singh Batra Vs. Sharan Premi, (2006) 133 DLT 126, our own Hon' ble High Court of Delhi observed:
"24. A statement published, unless it is defamatory per se, is actionable on proof that it is false and defamatory. Further, a complaint to a lawful authority is not actionable if it is not defamatory per se unless it is established that the complaint is false and is defamatory. As a consequence, a newspaper report pertaining to the complaint made to a lawful authority can not be actionable unless the allegations are of a kind that a case of defamation per se is made out. Thus, till before the court of law, it is not established that the FIR in question is based on false allegations, no action is even maintainable on the newspaper report."
28. In Bira Garari Vs. Dulhin Somaria, AIR 1962 Patna 229, it CS: 612541/16 Joginder Singh vs Monika Garg Page no.11 of 16 has been observed by Division Bench of Hon'ble Patna High Court that in case of defamation on the basis of registration of cognizable offence, it could not be said that the person has been defamed unless and until the said complaint is tested before the appropriate forum. In other words, once a person has legitimate grievance and he put criminal law into action, the other side can not lodge and bring about a suit for defamation so as to stop those criminal proceedings. The appropriate remedy would be either to get a case for damages for malicious prosecution or to get a case registered u/s 182 Cr.P.C. in case the charge sheet is not filed on the basis of report, or if he is able to earn acquittal with a specific finding to the effect that the allegations against him were false.
29. Relying upon the decision in Bira's case (Supra) our own High Court of Delhi in Vijay Gulati Vs. Radhika (2010) 119 DRJ 482, observed that till the time the criminal complaint initiated by the defendant no. 1 was not finally rejected, the maintainability of the suit on the ground of being defamed was pre mature. Hon' ble High Court of Delhi also observed in the said judgment that a document can not be deemed to be published qua the defamed person himself if he does not show prima facie that it has been sent to any other person. A person can not be said to be lowered in his own estimation unless, it is shown that the alleged complaint is purported to have been read by some other person.
30. Now, let us examine the facts of the present case in the light of the above discussed law on Civil Suits for damages on the ground of defamation. As per the plaint, the case of the plaintiff is that he has been aggrieved by the defamatory allegations made by the plaintiff in one of her litigations going on between the defendant and her husband Shri Vilamb Garg. The alleged defamatory allegations have been reproduced by CS: 612541/16 Joginder Singh vs Monika Garg Page no.12 of 16 the plaintiff in paragraph no.3 of his plaint which are reproduced hereinunder for the sake of clarity and convenience.
"That on the behest of those persons namely Deepak Nagesh and Joginder Singh and defendant no.2 Shri Neeraj Sharma, the plaintiff's husband i.e. defendant no.1 had sold out 100 square yards of his respective share against the wishes of the plaintiff and by putting pressure the plaintiff was stand to be a witness for the sale documents, so that the plaintiff may not raise any claim or objection in future."
31. It is also alleged that in addition to leveling such false allegations against the plaintiff, the defendant also started talking personally to the persons of plaintiff's circle repeating these allegations in front of them. These allegations were made recklessly and without any basis with malafide intention to harm the reputation of the plaintiff.
32. Plaintiff, as PW1 has also deposed on these lines in paragraph no. 4 and 5 of his affidavit Ex.PW1/A. However, interestingly, neither the details of the litigation in which such allegations/defamatory statements were allegedly made by the defendant against him have been mentioned either in the pleadings or the evidence; nor copy of such litigation has been placed on record. In affidavit in evidence although the copy of pleadings was marked as Ex. PW1/1, however, at the time of tendering it was stated by the plaintiff/PW1 that he has not filed on record the copy of the said proceedings/pleadings and accordingly, no document was exhibited as Ex.PW1/1. In the absence of any document on record to show that defendant had made any defamatory allegations against the plaintiff as alleged, it cannot be held that any such defamation as alleged has been done by the defendant.
33. Moreover, as per Exception 8 of Section 499 IPC, any accusation of offence made in good faith to authorized person does not CS: 612541/16 Joginder Singh vs Monika Garg Page no.13 of 16 amount to defamation. It is the case of the plaintiff that whatever allegations were made against him were made before the Court of Law. Accordingly, they categorically fall under this exception. During the course of arguments Ld.counsel for the plaintiff has also relied upon the order of Ld. MM dated 06.12.2018, whereby, the protest petition filed by the defendant against the closure report filed by the IO in case FIR no. 1336/2016 PS Bindapur u/s 406/420/34 IPC was dismissed. Certified copy of the said order is placed on record and during the course of final arguments it is argued that since the protest petition of the defendant wherein the defamatory allegations were made against the plaintiff had been dismissed by Ld. MM, the allegations made against the plaintiff have been found to be incorrect and accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of damages.
34. I have perused the order of Ld. MM dated 06.12.2018. There is no finding in the said order that any false allegations have been made by the defendant against the plaintiff herein. Moreover, in the absence of the actual pleading in which the plaintiff is alleging making of defamatory allegations against him by the defendant, this order of Ld. MM made against the protest petition filed by the defendant is of no help to the plaintiff.
35. In addition to this, in order to entitle a person to damages on account of defamation, the defamatory contents should be made available to a third person. In the present suit, although, the plaintiff has alleged in his plaint that the defendant had personally communicated the false and defamatory allegations made against him to his known persons. However, he has miserably failed to disclose the names of the said persons to whom the defamatory content was communicated or made available. Neither any person has been named by the plaintiff nor examined by him to show communication of the defamatory allegations to a third person. There is no evidence on record to show that the alleged defamatory statement had CS: 612541/16 Joginder Singh vs Monika Garg Page no.14 of 16 directly or indirectly lowered the moral or intellectual character or respect of the plaintiff in the estimation of others. As observed by our own High Court of Delhi in Vijay Gulati's case Supra, a person cannot be lowered in his own estimation. Unless it is proved that the alleged complaint is purported to have been read by some other person or the defamatory allegations are communicated to a third party, the offence of defamation as defined in Section 499 IPC, is not completed.
36. In the present case since there is no evidence on record that the alleged defamatory allegations/imputations were communicated to a third party and resulted in lowering/harming the reputation of the plaintiff in the eyes of a common man or exposing him to contempt, hatred or ridicule, it cannot be held that defendant had made any defamatory allegations against the plaintiff in public.
37. In view of the reasons given above, this issue is decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
Issue no.(iii) Whether the plaintiff has concealed the material facts from the court?OPD.
38. The onus to prove this issue was on the defendant. The defendant has alleged in preliminarily objection number four of her written statement that the defendant did not approach the court with clean hands and has concealed material facts from the court. However, no details of the facts concealed by the plaintiff from the court have been given in the written statement. Defendant has also not led any evidence to substantiate her claim of concealment of material facts by the plaintiff while filing the present suit.
39. In the absence of any evidence produced on record in order to prove this issue, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
CS: 612541/16 Joginder Singh vs Monika Garg Page no.15 of 16 Issue no.(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of damages for Rs. 10 lacs as prayed or to any other amount?OPP.
40. In view of my issuewise findings given in Issue no. 2 above, since the plaintiff has failed to prove any defamatory allegations levelled against him by the defendant, the plaintiff is not entitled for any damages. This issue is, accordingly, decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
Relief:
41. In view of my issuewise findings given above, the suit of the plaintiff stands dismissed. No order as to cost. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. Digitally signed by SHIVALI SHIVALI SHARMA ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT SHARMA Date: 2022.02.28 (SHIVALI SHARMA)16:41:13 +0530 On:28.02.2022 ADJ03/WEST/THC/DELHI CS: 612541/16 Joginder Singh vs Monika Garg Page no.16 of 16