Delhi District Court
Roshan Lal Jain vs . Amit Jain & Ors. Page 1 Of 22 on 18 July, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. DEEKSHA SETHI, MM-03,
SOUTH WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS,
DELHI.
CNR No. DLSW02-001309-2014
Ct. Case: 44991517/2016
Sh. Roshal Lal Jain
S/o late Mahabir Prasad Jain
R/o WZ-101/A, School Road,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059.
............Complainant
vs.
1. Sh. Amit Jain @ Sonu
S/o Late Rishi Pal Jain
R/o RZ-14, Indira Park Extn., Part-1,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059.
2. Sh. Subhash Chand Jain
(Kabari Wala)
S/o Late Mahabir Prasad Jain
RZ-5, Santosh Park,
P.S Binda Pur, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi-110059.
3. The State.
The Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
..................Respondents.
Date of Institution : 22.08.2014
Date of Judgement : 18.07.2022
Roshan Lal Jain vs. Amit Jain & ors. Page 1 of 22
Ct. Case No.4991517/2016
JUDGMENT
Brief facts
1. Vide this judgment I shall dispose of a complaint case filed on 22.08.2014 by the complainant Roshan Lal Jain against the accused persons namely Amit Jain and Subhash Chander Jain u/s 420, 120B, 34, 500 and 506 of IPC.
2. An application u/s 156(3) was also filed by the complainant, however, the same was dismissed by my Ld. Predecessor vide his order dated 22.08.2014 on the ground that the said application does not disclose commission of any cognizable offence. The complainant had thereafter led pre summoning evidence and had examined himself as CW-1 on 09.09.2014 and his son Sh. Ravi Jain as CW-2 on 17.11.2014.
Proceedings before the court
3. Statement of CW-1 Sh. Roshan Lal Jain given on 09.09.2014 at the time of pre-summoning evidence sums up the whole incident and the same runs as follows:
"On 07.02.2014, I received a call from my mother and brother that on 09.02.2014 persons are coming to see Amit. On 09.02.2014, I again received a call that persons from girl's side have come and asked me to come. I reached there and had talked with the family members of girl and decided to see the girl. On the same day, in the evening we went to see the girl and after Roshan Lal Jain vs. Amit Jain & ors. Page 2 of 22 Ct. Case No.4991517/2016 seeing the girl we performed the ceremony of goad bhrai. On 27/28.03.2014, we all family members had discussion regarding marriage and ordered for printing of 200 cards which came after printing on 07.04.2014. 50 cards were handed over to me for distribution to my nearer and dearer. I was the host in the cards. On 27.04.2014, I alongwith my son, Amit Jain and other relatives we went to the house of maternal uncle of Amit Jain for bhaat. After finishing the ceremony of bhaat we came back. Thereafter, we came to know that both the accused persons were propagating that I am a quarrelsome person and they will not invite me in the marriage. On 05.05.2014, at about 1/1:30PM, two police officials from PS Dabri came to my shop in santro car and threatened me that I will not attend the marriage of Amit as he had lodged a complaint against me. Police officials asked me to give in writing that I will not attend marriage. My son Satish refused to write and told to come with Amit or Subhash. Police officials took me and all my three sons to PS Dabri where Subhash and Amit were present where again police officials told me to give in writing not to attend the marriage. Police officials also told that they are doing so on the directions of DCP Sanjay Kumar Jain. They also threatened that if we do not give the same in writing, they will falsely implicate us. They made us to sit in the PS till 9:30 PM and took our signatures on some blank papers. They also took our signatures on a paper on which it was written that we do not attend the marriage on 07.05.2014. Thereafter, we did not attend the said marriage. Thereafter, our counsel sent a legal notice to accused persons for defamation demanding Rs. 20 lacs. I received a reply from the accused persons in which it was stated that there is no Roshan Lal Jain vs. Amit Jain & ors. Page 3 of 22 Ct. Case No.4991517/2016 role of DCP Sanjay Kumar and accused persons lodged a complaint against us vide DD No. 55A, PS Dabri. We also got information through RTI that there was no complaint against us vide DD No. 55A or any other DD. Thereafter, I got the confirmation order of RTI from Appellate Authority. Thereafter, I sent a complaint to SHO and DCP regarding the entire incident but no action was taken till date. The marriage card is Ex. CW1/1. Legal notice dated 19.05.2014 is Ex. CW1/2. Reply dated 28.05.2014 of the accused persons to legal notice Ex. CW1/3. RTI is Ex. CW1/4 (OSR). Acknowledgement dated 10.05.2014 and order dated of the appeal dated 23.07.2014 are Ex. CW1/5 (OSR) and Ex. CW1/6(OSR) respectively.
Complaint made to SHO dated 11.08.2014 is Ex. CW1/7 and complaint made to Additional Commissioner of Police dated 12.08.2014 is Ex. CW1/8. Internet generated print out regarding defamation is Mark X. The accused persons may be summoned and punished for the defamation and harassment caused to me and my family members."
4. CW-2 Sh. Ravi Jain had also corroborated the version of CW-1 and on the basis of their statement, the Ld. Predecessor of this court had held that an offence u/s 500 IPC is made out. He had thus, summoned the accused persons, i.e., Amit Jain and Subhash Chander Jain for the above said offence vide order dated 13.01.2015. Summons were issued to the accused persons. They had appeared in court on 11.03.2015 and thereafter a notice u/s 251 CrPC was framed against the accused persons Amit Jain and Subhash Chander Jain for an offence punishable u/s 500 IPC on 17.08.2015.
Roshan Lal Jain vs. Amit Jain & ors. Page 4 of 22 Ct. Case No.4991517/20165. Thereafter evidence was led by the complainant. The complainant in support of its case has examined his sons, i.e., CW-1 Ajay Jain, CW-2 Praveen Jain and CW-3 Satish Jain. He had examined himself as CW-4, his son-in-law Amit Kumar Bansal as CW-5 and one Ravi Jain (his another son) as CW-6.
6. All these witnesses have narrated the incident in detail. They were thoroughly cross-examined by the Ld. Defence counsel. Statement of accused persons Amit Jain and Subhash Chander Jain u/s 313 CrPC was recorded on 09.07.2019. They had, however, denied all the incriminating evidence appearing on record against them and submitted that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated.
7. The accused persons had also led evidence in their defence. DW-1 is one Smt. Shanti Devi, DW-2 is Shrikrishan who is father-in-law of accused Amit Jain, DW-3 is accused Amit Jain and DW-4 is accused Subhash Chander Jain. These witnesses except DW-1 was cross- examined by Ld. Counsel for the complainant at length.
8. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the complainant as well as the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons at length, gone through the record and given my thoughts to the matter.
Findings
9. Before proceeding further let this court first examine the statement of the complainant CW-4 Sh. Roshan Lal Jain to find out whether any case for defamation is made out or Roshan Lal Jain vs. Amit Jain & ors. Page 5 of 22 Ct. Case No.4991517/2016 not. For ready reference, the statement of the complainant recorded on 28.06.2017 after framing of notice is quoted below:
"On 07.02.2014, I received a call from my mother and brother that on 09.02.2014 some people will come to see Amit Jain. On 09.02.2014, I received a call from my mother and brother that the ladki walas have come. I went to the house of my mother. There, we had talks with the other side. Thereafter, we made program to visit the house of the girl. Same day, we went to the house of the girl consisting of my son Ajay Jain, son of my brother Ashu Jain, my sister Santosh Mittal, daughter in law of my brother Prem Lata and Amit Jain went to the house of the girl. They liked the girl. Thereafter, they returned back. Thereafter, we planned to have roka ceremony same day. The said ceremony was performed same day.
After some days, we again sat together and planned how many wedding cards to be printed. We agreed to got printed 200 wedding cards. I was given 50 cards to be distributed to the relation/friends etc. The bhat ceremony had to take place on 27.04.2014. I with some persons namely Sh. Chandi Ram, Amit Jain, Ashu Jain and Ravi Jain went to the house of the mama of Amit Jain. There Amit Jain and Subhash Jain started taunting me on one pretext or the other.
On 05.05.2014 at about 1-1:30PM, two police personnel came at my shop on white santro car. They were in civil dress. They told me that I cannot attend the marriage of Amit Jain and that I should give in writing in this regard. Upon this, my son told to those police personnels that in case Amit Jain come and tell us that we should not attend marriage, we will not. Upon this, I Roshan Lal Jain vs. Amit Jain & ors. Page 6 of 22 Ct. Case No.4991517/2016 along with my sons namely Ravi Jain, Praveen Jain and Satish Jain were directed to come to the PS Dabri. We went there and were made to sit there for long hours. Thereafter, I was made to sign on a paper on which something was written and 2-3 blank papers were also got signed by me by the police. Thereafter, we were released at about 09:30 PM. The accused persons were also present in the police station. The marriage of accused Amit Jain took place and none from our family attended the said marriage.
On 18.05.2014 again said 19.05.2014, I sent a notice to the accused persons of defamation. Reply was received from the accused persons in which derogatorily and abusive words were stated against me by the accused persons. I filed RTI application in respect of DD No. 55A. I received reply to the said application that there is no DD No. 55A as such. I also filed appeal against the said reply before the competent authority. I received reply therefrom also to the effect that since 01.05.2014-10.05.2014, there was no complaint against me in PS Dabri.
After I sent the aforesaid legal notice, accused Amit on Facebook described me as bhikhari to me and my son. The Facebook printout is Ex. CW4/A accompanying certificate u/s 65B which is Ex. CW4/B and affidavit Ex. CW4/C. Thereafter, I made a complaint to SHO, PS Bindapur and DCP but no action was taken. Whole incident was covered in newspaper Purvanchal Parhari already exhibited in pre-summoning evidence. After sometime, my son told his friend to tell Amit Jain to return his camera. Amit Jain again comment on Facebook 'Ajay bhikhari to kaho mera laptop de jaye apna camera le jaye'. The accused persons may be punished for defamation and harassment."Roshan Lal Jain vs. Amit Jain & ors. Page 7 of 22 Ct. Case No.4991517/2016
10.Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that on the basis of the statement of CW-4 Sh. Roshan Lal Jain, it is clear that the complainant was harassed as well as defamed by the accused persons and he was called a womanizer and a quarrelsome person. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has further argued that the complainant had also sent a notice to the accused persons for defamation on 19.05.2014. Reply was received from the accused persons in which they had used derogatory and abusive words against the complainant Roshan Lal Jain. They had also stated that a complaint in the form of DD No. 55A was lodged against the accused persons. Complainant had thereafter filed an RTI application but as per reply, there was no DD No. 55A. It is submitted that accused Amit Jain had described the complainant as well as his sons as bhikhari. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has also referred to a Facebook post Ex. CW4/A to prove the said fact. He has also referred to the newspaper Purvanchal Parhari wherein the complainant has been defamed. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has, therefore, submitted that complainant has proved its case against the accused persons on the basis of evidence led by him.
11.The Ld. Defence Counsel on the other hand had submitted that no case of defamation is made out from the statement of CW-4 Sh. Roshan Lal Jain or other witnesses. CW-4 has nowhere deposed that he was called a womanizer and a quarrelsome person by the accused persons. Ld. Defence counsel has thereafter referred to the statement of CW-4 Roshan Lal Jain vs. Amit Jain & ors. Page 8 of 22 Ct. Case No.4991517/2016 where he has referred about incident of 05.05.2014 when some police personnel had come to his shop in a white santro car. They had told him that he should not attend the marriage of accused Amit Jain. Upon his refusal to do so at the instance of his son, he along with his sons namely Ravi Jain, Praveen Jain and Satish Jain were taken to police station. They were made to sign two-three blank papers. He was also made to sign on a paper on which something was written. The accused persons were also present in the police station. Thereafter they were released at 09:30 PM. According to Ld. Counsel, this incident also does not disclose commission of an offence u/s 499 IPC. The Ld. Counsel has submitted that even if the incident is taken as true for the sake of arguments, it can at most be a case of harassment by police officers, but it does not make out a case for defamation.
12.Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has further argued that even the reply to RTI application does not make out any case for defamation. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that there was no DD No. 55A (though according to the Ld. Defence counsel this was a DD entry of PCR), no case for defamation is made out on the basis of the same and even of it is assumed for the sake of arguments that some offence is made out, it can at the most be treated as a case of illegal detention.
13.He has next referred to the Facebook post and submitted that it nowhere mentions the name of Roshan Lal or describes him as a bhikhari. He has next argued that so far Roshan Lal Jain vs. Amit Jain & ors. Page 9 of 22 Ct. Case No.4991517/2016 as news item in newspaper Purvanchal Parhari is concerned, the same also does not amount to defamation for the simple reason that the complainant has himself reported the matter to the newspaper. He has, therefore, submitted that complainant has failed to prove its case against the accused persons u/s 499 IPC and they be, therefore, acquitted for the offence charged.
14.I have carefully considered the rival submissions. The complainant in his complaint dated 21.08.2014 has referred to the following incidents on the basis of which according to him a case for defamation is made out against accused persons. The first incident is narrated in para no. 9 and 10 which runs as under:
"9. That the complainant received information from his close friends, relatives and business relations that the accused/ respondent no. 1 and 2 had been creating propaganda in public that the complainant is a quarrelsome persons and that he will create scene by indulging in quarrel with his Mama Ji and his family members during marriage ceremonies.
10. That both the accused/ respondent no. 1 and 2 have visited and called on the close friends, relatives and business relations of the complainant that the complainant is a quarrelsome persons and he should not join the marriage. They also informed them that they also should not join the marriage party."
However, it may be noted that complainant in his deposition dated 28.06.2017 recorded after framing of notice has nowhere stated that accused no. 1 and 2 had Roshan Lal Jain vs. Amit Jain & ors. Page 10 of 22 Ct. Case No.4991517/2016 propagated in public that complainant is a quarrelsome person and that he would create scene by indulging in quarrel with his mamaji and his family members during ceremonies. He has also not deposed in his examination that both the accused persons had visited and called the close friends, relatives and persons having business relations with the complainant and stated that complainant is a quarrelsome person and he should not join the marriage of accused Amit Jain Thus, the above allegations referred to in the complaint are not supported by the statement of the complainant as CW-1.
15.The complainant CW-4 Roshan Lal Jain in his deposition has however referred to the legal notice dated 19.05.2014 and stated that the same was sent to the accused persons for defamation. In the said notice which is Ex. CW1/2, the complainant has more or less copied and narrated the contents of paragraphs 9 and 10 of the complaint which are discussed above. Perusal of paragraphs 10 and 11 of the legal notice CW1/2 reveals that Mr. Roshan Lal Jain has stated that he had received information from his close friends, relatives and persons having business relations with him that accused persons had been propagating that complainant is a quarrelsome person. Let this court now examine the fact whether such close friends, relatives and persons with whom the complainant was having business relations have been examined by the complainant or not. The answer to the same lies in negative and it will be clear Roshan Lal Jain vs. Amit Jain & ors. Page 11 of 22 Ct. Case No.4991517/2016 from the witnesses examined by him after framing of notice u/s 251 CrPC against accused persons.
16.Let this court first examine the statement of CW-1 Sh. Ajay Jain who is the son of the complainant and has narrated all the incidents in detail. He has deposed as follows so far as the allegations levelled by the accused persons against his father that he (the complainant) is of quarrelsome nature are concerned:
"We came to know that Amit Jain and Subhash Jain are defaming my father by saying that he is quarrelsome person and has bad eyes on women and he also wants to grab the property of Amit Jain and Amit Jain also did not invite my father whereas marriage card bear the name of my father as well as our shops."
17.Perusal of the above statement reveals that this witness had come to know that both the accused persons were defaming his father. However, he has not disclosed the name of the persons who had told him that accused persons are defaming his father. Neither any of them have been examined by the complainant. Since those persons have not been named or examined by the complainant, therefore, no reliance can be placed upon his statement, i.e., of CW-1 Ajay Jain where he has alleged that accused persons were saying that complainant is a quarrelsome person and has bad eyes upon the women and wants to grab the property of accused Amit Jain. Moreover, this witness has gone beyond the version given by the complainant in his complaint as well as in his deposition Roshan Lal Jain vs. Amit Jain & ors. Page 12 of 22 Ct. Case No.4991517/2016 by stating that accused are defaming his father by saying that he has bad eyes on women and he also wants to grab the property of accused Amit Jain. In view of the above discussion, no reliance can be placed upon the statement of CW-1 so far as he states that accused persons were defaming his father by saying that he is a quarrelsome person and has bad eyes on women and intends to grab the property of accused Amit Jain.
18.CW-2 Parveen Jain who is also the son of the complainant has nowhere stated in his examination in chief that his father was being defamed by the accused persons by saying that he is a quarrelsome person and has bad eyes on women. Thus, his statement also does not help the complainant in proving his allegations.
19.CW-3 Satish Jain who is also son of the complainant has also deposed that he had come to know that accused persons were making false allegations against his father and defaming him by saying that he is a womanizer and also has evil eyes on property of accused Amit Jain. This witness has also not disclosed the source from where he had come to know about the above allegations. Thus, his statement also does not prove the allegations levelled against the accused persons that they are defaming the complainant Sh. Roshan Lal Jain.
20.CW-5 Ajay Kumar Bansal is son-in-law of the complainant. He has also nowhere stated that his father-in- law has been defamed by accused persons by stating that Roshan Lal Jain vs. Amit Jain & ors. Page 13 of 22 Ct. Case No.4991517/2016 he is of a quarrelsome nature or is a womanizer. He has, however, come out with a different version and stated that just before three or four days of the marriage of accused Amit Jain, he (accused Amit Jain) had called him and stated that they have written on a board on their gate that 'kutto ka aur kutto ke pillo ka aana mana hai'. This version of the witness cannot be considered by this court at all for the reason that it does not appear in the complaint of the complainant Roshan Lal Jain or in his statement or even in the statement of other witnesses appearing on record. This witness has further come with another version regarding defamation of the complainant and stated when they were sitting in PS Dabri, the accused persons had said that 'Roshan Lal Jain awara kisam ka vyakti hai aur aurto pe buri nazar rakhta hai. Yeh humari jaydat hadapna chahta hai'. This version too is not supported by the complaint Ex. CW1/2 or statement of the complainant CW-4 or other witnesses examined by the complainant in support of his claim.
21.In view of the above discussion, it is very clear that no defamation is made out against the accused persons on the basis of the statement of witnesses that accused persons had stated that Roshan Lal Jain is a quarrelsome person and is a womanizer as there are contradictions in the statement of witnesses examined by the complainant and further in view of the fact that not even a single person who had uttered these words has been examined as a witness by the complainant.
Roshan Lal Jain vs. Amit Jain & ors. Page 14 of 22 Ct. Case No.4991517/201622.Let this court now examine the fact whether the allegations levelled by CW-4 Roshan Lal Jain (complainant) to the effect that on 05.05.2014 they were taken to police station and were made to sign on a paper on which something was written and police had got signed some blank papers constitutes the offence of defamation. The above incident as narrated by the complainant on 28.06.2017 in his examination-in-chief is quoted below for ready reference:
"On 05.05.2014 at about 1-1:30PM, two police personnel came at my shop on white santro car. They were in civil dress. They told me that I cannot attend the marriage of Amit Jain and that I should give in writing in this regard. Upon this, my son told to those police personnels that in case Amit Jain come and tell us that we should not attend marriage, we will not. Upon this, I along with my sons namely Ravi Jain, Praveen Jain and Satish Jain were directed to come to the PS Dabri. We went there and were made to sit there for long hours. Thereafter, I was made to sign on a paper on which something was written and 2-3 blank papers were also got signed by me by the police. Thereafter, we were released at about 09:30 PM. The accused persons were also present in the police station. The marriage of accused Amit Jain took place and none from our family attended the said marriage."
23.Perusal of the above narration by CW-4 Roshan Lal Jain reveals that on 05.05.2014 about 1 or 1:30 PM, two police personnel had come in a santro car. They were in civil dress and told him that he should not attend the marriage of Amit Jain (accused) and should give the same in Roshan Lal Jain vs. Amit Jain & ors. Page 15 of 22 Ct. Case No.4991517/2016 writing. Upon refusal by his son to do so, he along with his sons namely Ravi Jain, Parveen Jain and Satish Jain were directed to come to PS Dabri. They were made to sit there for a long time. He was made to sign on a paper on which something was written and two three blank papers were also got signed by him by the police. Thereafter they were released at 9.30 PM. The accused persons were also present at the police station.
24.Let this court examine the fact whether the above incident amounts to defamation or not. Perusal of the above facts as stated by Roshan Lal Jain (the complainant) nowhere reveals that it constitutes an offence of defamation. Even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that this fact is correct they were taken to the police stations and he was made to sign a paper that he will not attend the marriage of Amit Jain (accused) and were made to sit in the police station for a long time and some blank papers were also got signed from him and the accused persons were present there, at the most, it can be held that complainant Roshan Lal Jain and his sons were taken by the police officers without any basis and were unnecessarily asked to sign the papers and to sit there for long hours and thus, at the most it may make out a case of illegal detention but not defamation. However, it is clarified that it has only been assumed for the sake of argument that the above incident may amount to a case of illegal detention, however, one thing is very clear that the above incident does not fall Roshan Lal Jain vs. Amit Jain & ors. Page 16 of 22 Ct. Case No.4991517/2016 under the definition of defamation and does not make out a case u/s 499 IPC.
25.CW-2 Parveen Jain who is also son of the complainant has also narrated the above incident. He has, however, come out with a new version that police officials had beaten him and Ravi Jain before the accused persons. CW-2 Parveen Jain has come out with another version stating that both the accused persons have stated in the police station that complainant is a quarrelsome person and has bad eyes on women. However, perusal of record reveals that other witnesses have not stated the fact that such words were uttered by the accused persons in the police station. Thus, the statement of this witness is not worthy of reliance and cannot be relied upon for proving the case of the complainant against the accused persons under section 499 IPC.
26.CW-3 Satish Jain has also narrated as to what had happened in the police station and stated that police officials had beaten them. However, this fact of beating is not supported by any cogent evidence on record.
27.CW-5 is the son-in-law of complainant. He has stated that he had come to know that his father-in-law and his sons have been taken to police station. He has stated that in the police station, both the accused persons had stated that 'Roshan Lal Jain awara kisam ka vyakti hai aur aurto pe buri nazar rakhta hai. Yeh humari jaydat hadapna chahta hai.' As discussed earlier, this is neither the case of Roshan Roshan Lal Jain vs. Amit Jain & ors. Page 17 of 22 Ct. Case No.4991517/2016 Lal Jain (the complainant) in his complaint nor in his statement before the court nor of other witnesses and, therefore, CW-5 cannot be believed and no case for defamation is made out on the basis of his statement.
28.CW-6 is also son of the complainant. He has also stated that they were taken to police station when his father refused to sign some blank papers. As discussed above, no case of defamation is made out on the basis of incident which had taken place in the police station. As discussed earlier, even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that the incident is true, it can at the most be a case of illegal detention and harassment but not a case of defamation at all.
29.Let this court now come to the third incident on the basis of which the complainant has tried to make out a case under section 499 IPC against the accused persons. The complainant has stated that he had sent a legal notice to the accused persons for defamation. In reply, the accused persons have mentioned that they had lodged a complaint bearing no. DD No. 55A. He had thereafter filed an RTI wherein it was stated that there was no such DD entry.
30.This court has given its thought to the above fact and is of the opinion that no case for defamation is made out on the basis of the above allegations. In the opinion of this court, even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments, that there was no DD entry and the police officers have illegally Roshan Lal Jain vs. Amit Jain & ors. Page 18 of 22 Ct. Case No.4991517/2016 detained the accused persons, no offence for defamation at least is made out.
31.Let this court now discuss the fourth incident on the basis of which it is alleged that complainant has been defamed and it relates to some comment about the complainant on the Facebook post of accused Amit Jain. The complainant has stated in his examination in chief that accused Amit Jain has described him as bhikhari on his Facebook post. Screenshot of Facebook post is also exhibited as Ex. CW4/A.
32.Let this court now examine the Facebook post Ex. CW4/A. Perusal of the same does not reveal that complainant Roshan Lal Jain has been described as a bhikahri. His name does not appear on the Facebook post. Thus, on the basis of the above Facebook post, it cannot be said that any offence u/s 499 IPC is made out.
33.Ld. Counsel for the complainant has lastly argued that Roshan Lal Jain's son Mr. Ajay Jain has been described as a bhikhari. Accused Amit Jain has commented on his Facebook 'Ajay bhikhari ko kaho mera laptop de jaye apna camera le jaye'. It has to be kept in mind that Ajay is not a complainant before this court. Ajay has nowhere deposed in his examination in chief about the above words. He has only stated that his camera was in possession of accused Amit Jain and when he had asked for the camera through friend of Amit Jain namely Deep Prajapat, he was Roshan Lal Jain vs. Amit Jain & ors. Page 19 of 22 Ct. Case No.4991517/2016 informed that he was called like on Facebook. Nothing can be made out from the above deposition of CW-1 Ajay Jain.
34.Keeping in view the above facts, and particularly the fact that Ajay Jain is not the complainant, no offence u/s 499 IPC is made out on the basis of the said comment on Facebook.
35.Ld. Counsel for the complainant has, however, stated that CW-1 Ajay Jain has deposed that after receiving the notice sent by his father Ex. CW1/2, accused Amit Jain had written on his Facebook that 'kal ek bhikhari bheekh me mujhse Rs 2 ki jagah Rs 2000000 (20 Lakh) mang raha tha.' This court has perused the Facebook post placed on record. Though these words appear on the Facebook post, however, the accused has not named the complainant and has made a general observation.
36.CW-3 Satish Jain, another son of complainant has said that the defamatory comments written by accused Amit Jain on his Facebook were construed by them to be defamatory comments made by the accused against them since they had sent a legal notice demanding Rs. 20 lacs as damages from the accused persons. In the opinion of this court, no offence can be made out on the basis of conjectures and surmises or interpretation given by a witness. It is very much clear that complainant Roshan Lal Jain has not been named in Facebook post in question. In view of the fact that complainant's name nowhere appears on the Facebook post, this court cannot connect the accused to the offence Roshan Lal Jain vs. Amit Jain & ors. Page 20 of 22 Ct. Case No.4991517/2016 on the basis of conjectures and surmises that these posts were written against complainant Roshan Lal Jain.
37.Ld. Counsel for the complainant has lastly submitted that accused persons have defamed them as the whole incident regarding the detention of the complainant and his sons in the police station was reported in the newspaper Purvanchal Parhari which is Ex. CW2/3. This court has perused the said newspaper. Perusal of the reported incident reveals that complainant Roshan Lal Jain had made an allegation that on 05.05.2014, they were taken to police station and beaten there. They were also made to sign on four blank papers and they were released at 9:30 PM. However, the perusal of cross-examination of CW-4, i.e., the complainant reveals that he has himself got the newspaper article published. Thus, when the complainant himself has got the news item published in the newspaper, this court can by no stretch of imagination hold that the accused persons have defamed him on the basis of newspaper report.
38.In view of the above discussion, this court is of the opinion that complainant has failed to prove its case and no case for defamation is made out against the accused persons on the basis of the evidence led by the complainant. The accused persons Amit Jain and Subhash Jain are, therefore, acquitted of the offence charged.
Roshan Lal Jain vs. Amit Jain & ors. Page 21 of 22 Ct. Case No.4991517/201639.This judgment contains 22 pages and the same has been pronounced by the undersigned in open court today and each page bears my signatures.
40.Let a copy of the judgment be uploaded on the official website of District Courts, Dwarka forthwith.
Digitally signed by Deeksha Sethi ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT Deeksha Date:
Sethi 2022.07.18
TODAY, i.e., ON 18.07.2022 15:45:44
+0530
Deeksha Sethi
Metropolitan Magistrate-03
South-West District/New Delhi
18.07.2022
Roshan Lal Jain vs. Amit Jain & ors. Page 22 of 22
Ct. Case No.4991517/2016