Bangalore District Court
Sri.M.Ismail Shariff vs Sri.S.Girish Kumar on 11 October, 2019
[C.R.P. 67] Govt. of Karnataka
Form No.9 (Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgment in Suits
(R.P.91)
IN THE COURT OF THE XIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE
AT BANGALORE [CCH.No.28]
Present: Sri. MALLIKARJUNA., B.Com., LL.M.,
XIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE
Dated this the 11th day of October, 2019
O.S.No.4295/2012
Plaintiff/s : Sri.M.Ismail Shariff,
S/o Late Ahamed Shariff,
Aged about 36 years,
R/at Flat No.304, 3rd floor,
Nishanth Prime Apartment, No.5,
Prime Street, Richmond Town,
Bangalore-56005.
(By Sri.J.R., Advocate)
- Vs -
Defendant/s : 1. Sri.S.Girish Kumar,
Father name not known
Aged Major, R/at No.610,
16th main, 3rd stage, Manjunathnagar,
Bangalore.
2. Sri.Ramachandra,
Father name not known,
Aged major, R/at No.548,
1st main, 4th Cross, Laggere,
Bangalore-560058
3. M/s Associated Broadcasting Company
Pvt.ltd., (TV9 and News 9)
No.13/1, Opp. Hockey Stadium,
Rhenius Street,
2 O.S.No.4295/2012
Richmond Town, Civil Station,
Bangalore-560 025
Represented by its C.E.O.
4. M/s Aisa news NetWork Pvt.ltd.,
Suvarna News 24x7
Off: # 202, 2nd Floor, Embassy square, 148
Opp: Police Commissioner's Office,
Infantry Road, Bangalroe-560 001
R/by its CEO
5. M/s Kasthuri Media Private Limited,
( Kasthuri Kannada News)
# 12 & 12/1, Josco Jewellery Building,
OPP: Sir.M.Visweshwaraiah Museum,
Kasthurba Road,
Banalore-560 001
R/by its C.E.O.
6. M/s Sun Net Works Limited
(Udaya TV)
No.9, Ground Floor,
Maran Towers, Brunton Road,
M.G.Road, Bangalore-560 025
R/by its C.E. O.
7. M/s Yash Broadcasting Industries Pvt.Ltd,
(Janashri T.V),
No.351, 5th & 6th Floors,
Salarpuria Tower 1,
Hosur Road, Koramangala,
Bangalroe-560 095
R/by its C.E.O.
8. Ms Writemen Media private Limited,
(Public T.V.Kannada News Channel),
Off: 4th Floor, BMTC Complex,
Yeshwanthpur Circle,
Yeshawanthpura, Bangalore-560 022
R/by its C.E.O.
3 O.S.No.4295/2012
9. M/s Newt Work 18 Media and Investments Ltd.,
(Etv Kannada)
Off. No.9/7, KCN Bhavan,
Yamuna Bai Road,
Madhava Nagar, Bangalore-560 001
R/by its C.E.O.
10. M/s Satish Sugrs private Limited,
(Samaya tV),
No.10/A, 5th Floor,
Chandrakirana Building,
Kasturba Road, Bangalroe-560 001
R/by its C.E.O.
11. M/s Bennet Coleman and Company Limited,
Owner of "Vijaya Karntaka and Time of India,
Off.No.4, Pampa Mahakavi Road,
Chamarajpet, Bangalroe-560 018.
R/by its Chief Editor,
12. M/s The printers,
(Owners of "Prajavani" and "Deccan Herald")
No.75, M.G.Road, Bangalore-560 001
R/by its Chief Editor
13. M/s Indian Express Group,
(Owners of Indian Express & Kannada
Prabha), No.1, Queens Road,
Bangalore-560 001
R/by its Chief Editor,
14. M/s The Manipal Group,
(Owners of Udayavani Kannada Newspaper)
No.201/47, Manipal Center,
Dickenson Road,
Bangalore-560 001
R/by its Chief Editor
(By Sri.RHM., Advocate for Deft.No.1, 2,
Sri.A.S.P, Advocate for Deft.No.3
Sri.A.B., Advocate for Deft.No.4
4 O.S.No.4295/2012
Sri.PVK, Advocate., for D9, Sri.PM Advocate.,
For Deft.11 Sri.SS.,Advocate., for D-12
Deft.No.5 to 8, 10, 14 - Exparte )
Date of institution
of the suit : 20-06-2012
Nature of the suit
[suit on pronote, suit :
for declaration and Permanent Injunction
possession, suit
for injunction]
Date of the commencement
of recording of the evidence: 23-11-2018
Date on which the
Judgment was pronounced : 11-10-2019
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total Duration 07 03 21
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for the relief of permanent injunction and other consequential reliefs.
2. The brief facts of the plaintiffs' case are as under:
5 O.S.No.4295/2012
That the plaintiff and his family are involved in business of arms since from 1900. The plaintiff doing said business with licence issued by competent authority in the name of "M/s Malnad Armory", a partnership firm in Hassan. He has earned a good name in the field of firearms business as he has maintained clean track record. He used to buy and sells the firearms to intending seller or buyer only if they have clear valid papers, either to sell or to purchase in their name issued by the competent authorities. He is income tax assessee. The plaintiff also doing the business of firarms at Bangalore also as a commission agent with one licensed firearms licensee i.e. "Kovi shop." That in the month of April 2012, plaintiff received a telephone call from defendant No.1 induced himself as fire arm licence holder and was intend to buy firearms at Bangalore. The plaintiff asked defendant No.1 to visit aforesaid "Kovi shop.". The first defendant visited said shop along with 2nd defendant. After due verification of the firearm licence in the name of first defendant, plaintiff shown some fire arms to them. The defendant shown 6 O.S.No.4295/2012 willing to see more varieties of firearms. So the plaintiff asked them to visit his shop at Hassan. Accordingly said defendants visited the plaintiff's shop at Hassan. He shown them firearms at their request he test fired the selected firearms. The defendant No.1 finalized one of the firearms and told that he had not brought money and offered to issue cheque as mode of payment. The plaintiff has refused the same. Then defendant No.1 told that after money is ready he will pay it at Bangalore and completed formalities of buying selected firearm for which plaintiff agreed. That on 11.06.2012 at about 5 p.m. said defendants called the plaintiff stating that the money is ready and they want to meet him. The plaintiff told them to meet him at "Kovi shop." Bangalore. On the same day evening said defendants started to ask various questions about legality of the business also enquired about place of procuring fire arm. The plaintiff satisfactorily answered enquiries of those defendants. The said defendants made allegation on plaintiff that he is violating the licence by selling said fire arm and did not have permission to deliver said firm arms 7 O.S.No.4295/2012 to in Bangalore. For which plaintiff stated he need not answer to them about their questions and told that licensing authorities regularly inspected his shop and cross checked all the books maintained during course of his business. If any discrepancy were to be found it will be the risk of losing licence to do the said business. Then those defendants told that they are from electronic media and they had conducted sting operation by video capturing all their meeting with the plaintiff secretly and showed him some of the clippings of the said video. These defendants also put offer of reward of Rs.1 crore to them if they were to hand over the said video to the electronic media like Times New, TV9 and NDTV as well as the print media like The Bangalore Mirror. Since the plaintiff has not committed any mistake nothing to fear told them to do as they want with said video clippings. The first defendant reacted that it will result in loss of reputation and future of business and will also ruined the entire business done by plaintiff. The first defendant demanded 1 crore rupees from the plaintiff apart from one fire arm free of cost. For which plaintiff flatly 8 O.S.No.4295/2012 refused. 2nd defendant threatened the plaintiff and told that he would wait till 13.06.2012 and also mentioned that plaintiff business would be spoiled ensure the end of life of the plaintiff. The plaintiff immediately lodged complaint against those defendants before Ulsoor police. The police have registered case in Crime No.183/2012 under Section 384 and 511 of IPC investigation is going on. The defendants with an intention to hike television rating point of each T.V.Channal and circulation news papers, the television channels or newspapers personals as the case may be, do sting operation by themselves or buy such sting operations done by others and air or publish through their media to public without verifying the correctness of the same by portraying individuals involved in such sting operations as if they have committed crime and do a media trial and give their judgment of conviction against the said individuals. The plaintiff has got clean track record in the firm arm business. The plaintiff has disclosed names of his client during the sting operation. They are having good names in the society and the same may also tarnish the 9 O.S.No.4295/2012 image of the said individuals as they have done business with the plaintiff in loss of reputation of the plaintiff will diminish in the eye of neighbours, friends and relatives and clients. The plaintiff suspect that the defendant No.1 and 2 may strike a shady deal with any of the television companies and or news papers agency who are named as defendant No.3 to 14 and part with so called doctored sting operation videos. Under such circumstances plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss which cannot be compensated by any other means. Hence the present suit is filed prayed for granting permanent injunction against the defendant No.1 and 2 from entering with any kind of agreement with other defendants or any other similar television channels or print media and part with sting operation video clippings conducted by them on plaintiff and for permanent injunction against the defendant No.3 to 14 from airing publishing or otherwise the sting operation conducted by the first and second defendants on plaintiff and such other reliefs. Hence prayed for decree the suit.10 O.S.No.4295/2012
3. After service of summons, the defendant No.5 to 8, 10 and 14 remained absent, hence they have been placed exparte, rest of the defendants have appeared through their counsel and filed their written statement. The brief facts of the written statement of defendant No.1 and 2 are as under.
That the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case. The averments of plaint para No.2 are hereby partly admitted with regard to the plaintiff running a business in the name and style M/s Malnad Armory having its office at Hassan and doing business of buying, selling and repairs of firearms. However the plaintiff has been running the same invalidly, as the license has not been validly renewed in accordance with rules of the Arms Act, 1959. It is false to say that plaintiff is maintaining clean track record and maintaining buying and selling firearms, income tax assessment, firearms and ammunitions business with his clients etc, are denied as false, the plaintiff put to strict proof of the same. The defendants have suspected firearm business and 11 O.S.No.4295/2012 accordingly questioned him but they would not get proper reasoning from the plaintiff with regard to firearm carrying firearm history off the weapon ban of import firearm stock price etc. The contention of the plaintiff that the defendant No.1 and 2 stated that they are from electronic media and had conducted a sting operation by video capturing and showed some of the said video to the plaintiff, they have also offer reward of rupees one crore if they were to hand over the said video to the electronic media like Times Now, TV9 and NDTV as well as print media like The Bangalore Mirror. In view of plaintiff having not committed any mistake had nothing to fear, he asked the defendant No.1 and 2 to do as they want with the said video clippings. Then defendants threatened loss of reputation and future of the business. The first defendant demand one crore from the plaintiff apart from one firearm to which the plaintiff flatly refused and asked the defendant No.1 and 2 to do what they wanted. All these facts are false and created story to suit the convenience of the plaintiff. He has filed false complaint against these defendants. The contentions of 12 O.S.No.4295/2012 the plaintiff that due to professional revelry, most fraudulently, maliciously and unethically said Mr.Hemanth kashap and his wife have informed the plaintiff about the said sting operation. Then all of them have conspired and immediately on the same night lodged the said false and frivolous F.I.R. against these defendants only because just to escape from the stringent legal action and criminal prosecution towards the said illicit firearms and ammunitions business by plaintiff. If the plaintiff was so innocent of crimes leveled against him and he is not involved in any unlawful activity and probability of amenities then he need not worry about loss of reputation harassment and future loss of business why he is stop news channel and news papers stock/publishing the same. The case of the plaintiff has no merit. The plaintiff has to put strict proof of each and every contention of the plaintiffs. The defendant No.1 is an advocate, defendant No.2 is a media person and one another advocate by name Yogananda Petitioner came to know each other during the time of Sri. Anna Hazare's movement against corruption at 13 O.S.No.4295/2012 Bangalore. That all the three of them are having valid firearm licence. In the month of April 2012 said Advocate Yoganand P. has contacted plaintiff for the purpose of purchase of good fire arm and he had cheated by a Bangalore based firearm dealer who has sold him a defective revolver, which later returned back to the same dealer under a complaint to the commissioner of police, Bangalore. The defendant No.1 who recently obtained fire arm license has contacted plaintiff to purchase a suitable fire arm for him. During the discussion the plaintiff has told that he has got pistols and revolvers of latest model manufactured in the year 1992 and later years. Interestingly, they enquired the plaintiff about prohibition on the import of firearms under the Exim policy and also on the disposal of customs cleared firearms during the life time of the owner but after the demise of the person concerned, the disposal/transfer will be permitted as per clarification of Central Home Ministry. However, plaintiff failed to clarify the doubts on these points. Therefore they have got suspicion about plaintiff's business learnt that he is 14 O.S.No.4295/2012 involved in irregular and illegal and collusive corruption nature. The plaintiff informed Sri.Yognand.P. to meet him at Hotel Cancery, Residency Road, Bengaluru by saying that he would show few latest version of firearms. That on 18.04.2012 in the evening Sri.Yoganand.P along with a known media person name Mr.C.Ramachandra i.e. defendant No.2 with hidden camera has met the plaintiff and saw couple of fire arms shown about which the plaintiff has stated that he has brought this pistol and sold to Mr.Chandra Kiran Reddy who is the son of Mr.Raghav Reddy, Irrigation Minister of Andra pradsh and he was proceeding along with another pistol i.e. Beretta which he sold to one Dr.Som Prasad, for the purpose of weapon inspection and registration at office of the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore and he has also stated that he sold the said pistol to Mr.Chandra Kiran Reddy for Rs.14 lakhs and another for manufactured in the year 1992. the plaintiff while explaining about firearm, inspite of their repeated demands, the plaintiff neither clarified nor showed the relevant documents and records pertaining to the said 15 O.S.No.4295/2012 arms. He has stated the names of several persons who have brought newly manufactured arms. According to the Government Circular No.3/95-Cu dated 12.1.1995 F.No.496/4/94-CUS.VI issued by Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of revenue, New Delhi and Ministry of Instructions dated 5.1.1998 wherein conditions stipulated that one firearm can be allowed to such persons and the same is not allowed to be dispose off during his life time for consideration otherwise. The disposal of the firearm after the demise of a person also narrated in the said circular. Such being the facts of the case the plaintiff is involved in illegal and malpractice business and he is unlawfully traveling along with several kinds of fire arms and ammunition without any permission. The defendant No.1 and 2 along with hidden camera had gone to the residence of the plaintiff at Hassan his younger brother Mr.Rahamathyulla Shariff showed various types of latest foreign pistols and revolvers which have already banned in the year long back 1988 they were in possession and without having necessary and valid sale or carrying 16 O.S.No.4295/2012 permissions, documents, records and NOC etc. The plaintiff has no safety about lives and properties in the said locality. The fired place was much crowded residential area. These acts are all gross violation of the conditions of the Arms trade lience. However, the plaintiff in collusion with certain public servants has neither availed the weapon carrying permission nor NOC during the aforesaid traveling from Hassan to Bengaluru and again back to Hassan. During the process of said transaction he has stated that he has sold various types of arms and ammunition to highly reputed and influence persons of the society without following the procedure of law and having authenticated document. Hence the conduct of the plaintiff is not in accordance with law. He is doing illegal transaction having hands with glow with various influential persons and public servants. It is evident that plaintiff has obliterates, removed, altered, forged name, number, identification, mark stamped, shown on a firearm. He has sold transferred the firearms, which do not bear the name of the maker, manufacturer's number and other identification mark 17 O.S.No.4295/2012 stamped and otherwise shown thereon in a manner approved by the Central or State Government. The younger brother of the plaintiff was also in possession of the fire arms without proper identification. The plaintiff involved in illegal Indian firearms and ammunition without holding licence issued by competent authority. The following information provided by Superintendent of Police Hassan District, authenticates the aforesaid facts and circumstances. That on 14.5.2012, the defendant No.2 has filed two RTI applications before the S.P. Hassan requesting for the detail information of total sale made by plaintiff and their model numbers, manufacturers, previous owners, purchasers of foreign made arms along with permission granted to the plaintiff and he had received several information which clearly evident that plaintiff is doing business un authorizedly illegally. The plaintiff is a habitual offender. In the year 1999 he was caught red handed while carrying firearms in an auto at the City of Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, without having necessary and valid documents and carrying permission thereof. The plaintiff is willfully and 18 O.S.No.4295/2012 intentional causing revenue loss to the exchequer by way of tax the concerned officials have without inspecting firearms and amenities and without inspecting firearms during the time of inspection and registration of the same with a dishonest intention of making gain with person to whom they have interest, committed criminal breach by allowing the plaintiff to do illegal firearms and ammunitions transaction. The defendant No.1 and 2 during the meeting with the plaintiff aforesaid incidents have been video recorded in a good faith with a bonafide intention. Since these matters are directly related to the internal security of nation and so many high profiled MLAs, ministers, politicians, industrialists, corporate personalities, buildings hoteliers, high-level public servants, Government officials etc., were maliciously involved in these unlawful transactions, the defendant No.1 and 2 and Sri.Yoganand.P had required further more information and documentary evidence. The sting operation dated 14.09.2012 reveals the same. Though these facts have be been brought to the Deputy Commissioner, Superintendent of Police Hassan 19 O.S.No.4295/2012 they have not taken any legal action against the plaintiff. That the plaintiff with a further fear and also having a guilt in his mind, on 20.06.2012 by hiding the real facts and facts and circumstances supra has filed the present permanent injunction suit and also obtained the temporary prohibitory order against 12 print and electronic media so as not to print and telecast the recorded video clips of the said sting operation. The suit is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost. There is no cause of action to the suit. Hence prays for dismissal of the suit.
4. The brief facts of the written statement of defendant No.3 are as under:
The suit of the plaintiff seeking permanent injunction against the defendant No.1 and 2 from entering with any kind of agreement with the other defendants or any other similar television channels or print media and part with the sting operation video clips conducted by them on plaintiff as detailed in the plaint is incorrect and not maintainable. It is submitted that M/s Associated Broadcasting Private Limited 20 O.S.No.4295/2012 (T.V.9 net work) is one of the fastest growing media in India today. The company has started with a 24 hours news channel in Andra Pradesh in the year, 2004, and quickly became a ratings leader there with our unique brad of bold and fearless journalism. In just four years the company had added seven more channels to its bouquet, each major player in its metier. The averments made in the plaint do not constitute sufficient grounds for the relief sought by the plaintiff in the suit against this defendant and intentionally the plaintiff has filed this false, vexatious suit with an ulterior motive to harass this defendant to have unlawful gain by causing unlawful loss to the reputation of this defendant in the field. Therefore the suit has to be dismissed with exemplary cost. The plaintiff had not approached this Hon'ble court with clean hands. The plaintiff has not produced any iota of evidence which discloses the facts to file this case against the 3rd defendant and this suit is nothing but a precautionary and imaginary suit. No program had been telecasted by these defendants which contains derogatory remarks against the plaintiff and 21 O.S.No.4295/2012 no sting operation had been done by this defendant to ascertain the truth. The plaintiff is wasting exorbitant time of this court by filing this false, frivolous and vexatious suit against the defendants. This suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties. These defendants are the unnecessary parties to the suit. the plaintiff has not produced his Pan card, Income tax returns and complete set of documents had not been sent to this defendant. The plaintiff be put to strict proof of the contents of the plaint averments. the defendant No.1 and 2 are not known to this defendant. The suit is filed figment of imagination. Hence suit is not maintainable and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
5. The defendant No.4 has reiterated the contents taken by the defendant No.1 to 3 and further contended that suit is debar from merit it is filed only on the ground of imagination. There is no cause of action, suit is liable to be dismissed in limine with exemplary cost. The defendant No.4 has not arrayed any programme which has portrayed the plaintiff in poor light nor has damaged his reputation. 22 O.S.No.4295/2012 This defendant has never misused the freedom of speech and expression, he has not indulged in unethical journalism, hence prayed for dismissal of the suit.
6. Brief facts of the written statement of defendant No.9 as under.
The defendant No.9 has also reiterated the contentions taken by the defendant No.3 and 4 and further contended that the plaintiff has wrongly named defendant No.9 as Network 18 Media & Investment Limited. Hence suit is liable to be dismissal. The plaint averments are not within the knowledge of this defendant hence denied. The plaintiff has not made any specific allegations against this defendant. The general allegations made in the plaintiff is untenable in law. The reports are telecasted on the basis of authenticated reports collected by the reporters. They strictly adhere to the communication/telecasting norms before publishing any reports. The suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable, hence prayed for dismissal of the suit. 23 O.S.No.4295/2012
7. Brief facts of the written statement of defendant No.11 as under.
The defendant No.11 also reiterated the same contention taken by the defendant No.11 and further contended that freedom of Press is nothing but freedom of expression. The Constitution of India guarantees freedom of speech and expression which includes liberty to propagate one's views, the views of others and to communicate the same. Even the Parliament cannot make a law which shall take away the rights so guaranteed except as provided under Article 19 (2) of the Consitution of India. The Court cannot pass a restraint order which has the effect of taking away the fundamental right of speech and expression. Neither the Government nor the officials, who apprehend, that they may be defamed, have the right to impose a prior restraint upon any publication. The remedy of public officials/public figures, if any, will arise only after the publication. It is a well settled law that any pre- censorship is not allowed in relation to the press and there 24 O.S.No.4295/2012 can be little doubt that the imposition of pre-censorship on a journal is a restriction on the liberty of the press is an essential part of the right to freedom of speech and expression. Hence prayed for dismissal of the suit with exemplary cost.
8. Brief facts of the written statement of defendant No.12 as under.
The defendant No.12 has also reiterated the same contentions taken by the defendant No.11 and other defendants and further contended that plaintiff does not disclose any cause of action against this defendant. This defendant has not received any material which is proposed to be published, alleged to be defamatory from the defendants No1 and 2. . The suit is a frivolous litigation engineered to harass the defendants. The plaintiff be put to strict proof of the contentions set up in the pliant, hence prays for dismissal of the suit.
25 O.S.No.4295/2012
9. On the basis of the above pleadings, materials and documents, my predecessor in office has framed the following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled for perpetual injunction against the defendants under the circumstances pleaded in the pliant?
2. Whether the plaintiff has shown cause of action to file the suit?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for reliefs claimed in the suit?
4. What decree or order?
10. In order to prove these issues, plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked 10 documents as Ex.P- 1 to 10. On the other hand the Assistant General manager of of defendant No.12 examined as D.W.1 and no documents got marked, hence case is posted for argument.
11. Heard the arguments of both sides.
12. My answers on the above issues are as follows : 26 O.S.No.4295/2012
Issue No.1 : In the negative,
Issue No.2 : In the affirmative,
Issue No.3 : In the negative
Issue No.4 : As per final order
for the following;
REASONS
13. ISSUE No.1: According to the plaintiff, he is running a firearm business in the name of "M/s Malnad Armory", a partnership firm and the plaintiff is managing partner of the same. He is doing his business of arms since early from 1900 in Hassan District. He has developed the business and earned good name in the field of firearm business and he has maintained clean track record. He used to buy from intended sellers and used to sell them for intending buyers. Before purchasing firearms from the intending sellers the plaintiff used to verify all the necessary documents and licence required as under law so also he used to verifying the documents and licence from the intending purchasers. He is income tax assessee maintaining all the records in respect of his business 27 O.S.No.4295/2012 properly. The defendant No.1 and 2 in the first week of April 2012 approached the plaintiff and told that they are having licence to hold firearms and intend to purchase firearms. Considering their request the plaintiff has shown firearms available in his shop. After verifying the said firearms they told that they required specific category arms. Therefore they have been asked to visit shop of the plaintiff's friend situated at Bangalore in the name and style as 'Kovi Shop' wherein the plaintiff used to do commission agent busiess with him. Later they have visited the Kovi shop at Bangalore and verified the arms they have been told to visit Hassan shop for testing some other fire arms. Accordingly they have visited Hassan shop and verifying the arms kept in the shop. Later the defendant No.1 and 2 have called the plaintiff over phone and told that they are intending to met the plaintiff personally. Accordingly the plaintiff meet them at that time they have told that they have done a sting operation and recorded each and every events taken place during their visit and they have demanded to give one crore rupees otherwise they are 28 O.S.No.4295/2012 going to publish said video clips recorded during the course of their visit with the plaintiff's shop and it will damage the reputation of the plaintiff. They have also told that since they are having contract with other electronic media as well as print media if they publics said sting operation video in the media they will get more than crore rupees. The plaintiff refused to pay the illegal demand made by the defendant No.1 and 2, so they have left the place threatening the plaintiff with dire consequences. As already stated above it is the case of the plaintiff that he is having business since from his ancestors and he has developed it with his hard work and struggle life. If the defendant No.1 and 2 in collusion with defendant No.3 to 14 and other media are able to publish the false and frivolous news about plaintiff then his reputation will be damaged in the society, so also in the family members and relatives which cannot be compensated by any other means. Therefore prayed for granting perpetual injunction against the defendants restraining them from publishing any matter related to alleged sting operation stated to be conducted by defendant 29 O.S.No.4295/2012 No.1 and 2 about the plaintiff and his business. Otherwise he will put to great hardship. These facts have been denied by the defendants in their written statements and contending that the defendants are responsible media persons. They have no contact with defendant No.1 and 2 as alleged by the plaintiff in the plaint with regard to publication of any matter or news in respect of the alleged sing operation stated to be conducted by defendant No.1 and 2 with plaintiff. Further the defendant no.3 to 14 are being responsible media persons having right of freedom of speech and expression it cannot be curtailed by issuing injunction order. These defendants being responsible persons having their own method of publishing the news. These defendants will not publish any matter as they received. On the other hand they have got their own information source and informant they will get it verified and confirm about the genuineness of the news and information thereafter it will be published. So the contentions of the plaintiff that defendants will published news and information without verifying the gunineness of it, 30 O.S.No.4295/2012 so also the allegation that the media will be published news without verification only with an intention to raise their T.R.P. is also false and frivolous untenable. If at all the plaintiff is doing his business lawfully without violating the rules and regulations. There need not be any apprehension for him about alleged sting operation and its publication. The plaintiff has filed false and frivolous suit only on imagination which is totally untenable. The plaintiff is not entitle to the reliefs sought in the suit. Hence prayed for rejection of the prayer of the plaintiff.
14. To prove the case of the plaintiff, he himself got examined as P.W.1, in his affidavit filed in the form of examination-in-chief he has reiterated the plaint averments and in support of his oral contentions he has over all relied Ex.P1 to 10 documents. Ex.P1 and 2 are the original form No.11 and 12 i.e. licence and permission to run firearm business. On perusal of the contents of the said documents it reveals that plaintiff is permitted to keep certain types of weapons i.e. firearms for a certain 31 O.S.No.4295/2012 quantity so also he can keep those arms and make repair of those arm, sell them and also he may purchase from prospective seller after verification of the necessary documents. Further Ex.P4 to 6 are the true copies of complaint dated 13.06.2012 and FIR No.226/2012 and 'B' report submitted by the concerned police. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that defendant No.1 and 2 have given complaint against the plaintiff alleging violation of licence and permission issued in his favour. After due investigation and enquiry and concerned police have filed 'B' report holding that the complaint of defendant no.1 and 2 is false and frivolous. Further Ex.P7 to 8 are also copies of the charge sheet, complaint, F.I.R. etc. It is the case of the plaintiff that he has given complaint against the defendants after investigation the police have filed charge sheet against them which is under consideration before the concerned jurisdictional magistrate. Except these documents the plaintiff has not produced any other materials before this court to prove that the defendant No.1 and 2 have made false sting operation and making 32 O.S.No.4295/2012 base of it they have made illegal demand for payment of Rs. One crore from the plaintiff and on failure to pay it they are going to publish video clippings of sting operation in the media. So in this regard his oral evidence has to be verified taking into consideration of contention set up by him in the plaint. Though the P.W.1 in his examination-in-chief reiterated the pliant averments and made several allegations against the defendants but in his cross examination he has deposed as under.
"1st week of April 2012, sting operation was conducted. Sting operation is conducted about my business. I do not have any document defendant No.12 has carried out any publication on sting operation. Mr Girish and Raghavendra rao approached me in the year April 2012 have threatened me. It is true to suggest that, defendant No.12 never threatened me. The contents of page No.7 of my chief affidavit are only apprehension. 33 O.S.No.4295/2012 On perusal of the contents of paragraph-7 of affidavit of the P.W.1 filed in the form of examination in chief thus reads as under.
" On 11/06/2012 at around 5 pm the first and 2nd defendants called me and mentioned that the money is ready, and wanted to meet him. I asked the first and second defendants to meet him at aforesaid Kovi shop. The first and second defendants met me at Kovi shop on the same day evening and started to ask various questions about the legality of business, from where firearms are procured and now new firearms are procured when there is bar etc., I answered those questions and mentioned that most of the firearms were procured prior to the bar and some were obtained by way of transfer of residence basis, which is permitted under law. first and second defendants mentioned that it is highly impossible to obtain such firearms when there is bar and mentioned that it is highly impossible to obtain such firearms when there is bar and mentioned that I was 34 O.S.No.4295/2012 violating the law by selling the said firearms, test firing the said firearms and did not have permission to deliver the said firearms in Bangalore without proper papers. The plaintiff mentioned that he need not answer the said questions and he is answerable to licensing authorities and also mentioned that the first and second defendant may enquire with the licensing authority about the legality of the firearms business done by the plaintiff. plaintiff also mentioned that licensing authorities regular inspect plaintiffs shop and cross check all the books maintained during the course of business of firearms and if any discrepancy were to be found, it would be at the risk of losing the license to do the said business apart from facing the penal consequences as per law."
The very evidence of P.W.1 clearly discloses that above narrated para-7 of the affidavit in chief is only based on his apprehension and there is no base for it. further the P.W.1 deposed as under.
35 O.S.No.4295/2012
15. The suit is filed on the basis of apprehension that the defendant No.12 might be published. It is true to suggest that I am no basis for my apprehension. It is true to suggest that I have filed false and frivolous case against the defendant No.12 to harass and defame him.
16. If the entire evidence of P.W.1 has taken into consideration his intention is very much clear that he has not bonafide reason or having material to show that the defendants are going to publish defamatory statements against him in the media. On the other hand it is mere his apprehension on the basis of said apprehension he has filed the instant suit. So mere apprehension itself is not sufficient to seek relief of perpetual injunction against the defendants. On the other hand it is for the plaintiff to establish that there are reasonable and bonafide grounds and place sufficient materials for his alleged apprehension. In this case the plaintiff has not produce single piece of document nor adduced any evidence which shows that he is having reasonable grounds to believe that the 36 O.S.No.4295/2012 defendants are going to publish defamatory news or making defamatory statements about him in the media. Therefore the contentions of the plaintiff appears to be unreasonable to accept. Moreover it is clearly admitted by P.W.1 that the defendant No.1 and 2 have conducted sting operation and recorded about his business. If really he is carrying on business lawfully and as per the rules and regulation and with due permission accorded to him there is no reason for his apprehension. It is specific allegation of the defendants that if he has not done any wrong act or not doing any illegal business then no question of defendants publishing defamatory news not arise. On behalf of the defendants also one witness has been examined. The plaintiff has cross examined the D.W.1 in length but nothing is elicited form his mouth in support of plaintiff averments and contrary ot the written statement contents. As rightly pointed by defendants in the written statement that firearm business is very sensitive business and it is having impact over the internal security of the nation so also question of law and order is also involved 37 O.S.No.4295/2012 therefore such business it should be fair and transparent. The person who is carrying on such business he must be in a position to run it transparently and make his business without giving any room for any kind of suspicious circumstances argument appears to be reasonable. If the defendants have made any sting operation about his business what kind of bad impact fall on his business if he is not doing any illegal or unlawful activities, so how it will damage the reputation of the plaintiff has not been explained by him. So the plaintiff has miserably failed to make out his case that due to alleged publication on sting operation in media his reputation will be damaged and it cannot be compensated by any other means with cogent and convening evidence. the plaintiff even has not explained in what way his reputation will going to be badly affected. Therefore the contention of the plaintiff not only based on presumption and assumption and it has no basis arguments holds to be reasonable. That the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove that defendants are publishing defamatory news or statement about him in the media. 38 O.S.No.4295/2012 Therefore his contention is unreasonable to accept arguments appears to be reasonable. The learned counsel for the plaintiff vehemently argued and contend that merely because media is having freedom of speech and expression that cannot be misused and it cannot be made base for publishing defamatory statement in respect of the citizens. Therefore injunction order can be granted against the defendants restrained them from publishing defamatory news about the plaintiff about alleging sting operation stated to be held in the first week of April 2012 and onwards and relied the following decisions in support of his arguments.
1. AIR 1982 MP 47 Hari Shankar V/s Kailash Narayan
2. AIR 1988 KAr 255 - Sonnakka Gopala Gowda and Others V/s U.R.Anantha Murthy and others.
3. ILR 1987 KAR 100 - A.K.Subbaiah Vs B.N.Gurudachar
4. 2010(4) KCCR 2851 (DB)- State of Karntaka Vs Murali and others 39 O.S.No.4295/2012
5. AIR 2005 SC 2473 Rajendra Sail Vs Madhya Pradesh High Court Bar Association and others
6. AIR 2001 BOM 176 -Shilpa Shetty V/s Magna Publicaitons
7. 2016 SCC Online ori 39 Navin Das V Ranjita Singh
8. Naveen Jindal Vs M/s Zee Media Corporation Ltd Anr on 5 March, 2015
17. I have gone through the above referred decisions. The facts and circumstances of the above referred matter are quite different with the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the above referred case in some of the matters defamatory news has partly published and injunction order has been granted for future publication. But in the present case no such circumstances arisen. It is not the case of the plaintiff that the defendants have published any kind of defamatory news or article so far. So also the plaintiff has not made out his case before the court that what information's have been collected by the defendant No.1 and 2 in the course of 40 O.S.No.4295/2012 sting operation which is going to cause damage to his reputation in case of publication, unless the plaintiff is able to make out his case and make it clear that if the information published it will cause him to his reputation believing his version does not holds good. Therefore with due respect to the principles laid down in the above referred matter I am of the opinion that they are not helpful to the case of the plaintiff.
18. The learned counsel for the defendants vehemently argued and contended that freedom of speed expressed under Article 19 of Constitution of India Guaranteed freedom of speech and expression merely because it may cause damage to the person whose news is published cannot be ground for curtailing the right of guarantee under constitution. More over the plaintiff has not made out clear that which news is effecting his right and causing defamation. Therefore blanket order of injunction cannot be granted to the plaintiff and relied the following decisions.
41 O.S.No.4295/2012
1. ILR 1978 Kar 1560 Gopal M.Hegde and others V/s Narasimha Ganap Bhat and others -Appellate Civil Court.
2. SCC Online Kar., 72, (1981) 1 Kant LJ 365 R.G.Janthakal Vs Bharat Parikh Kar.High Court 1981..
3. C.S. (OS)No.881/2004 dt.1.4.2014 in IA.No.5690/2014, Naveen Jindal & Anr V/s Zee Media Corporation Ltd & Ors - High Court of Delhi.
4. Extract of The Law Relating to Injunctions in India by Sir John George Woodrofee; 1988 Edn, page No.58-63.
19. I have gone through the principles laid down in the above referred matter. News should be reported with due accuracy and accuracy regard of verification and presentation of all facts that are necessary incident particular event or issue indigent privacy in news based related programme.
42 O.S.No.4295/2012
20. Therefore in my view mere apprehension is not sufficient, it must be reasonable apprehension based on sufficient ground, mere prospect or apprehension of injury or the mere belief that act complained of may or will be done, is not sufficient, but if an intention to do the act complained of can be shown to exist, or if a man insists on his right to do, or begins to do, or threatens to do or gives notice of his intension to do, an act which must, in the opinion of the Court, if completed, give a ground of action, there is a foundation for the exercise of jurisdiction. So the court need not interfere where there are not sufficient data to prove such intention or act.
21. So the court need not interfere whether there are not sufficient data to prove such intention or act. In the instant case the plaintiff has not proved the acts attributed to the defendant about alleged defamatory materials recorded in the sting operation. Therefore, in my view the plaintiff has not made out sufficient grounds for granting perpetual injunction sought by him. Hence he has failed to 43 O.S.No.4295/2012 prove issue No.1 and 3. Accordingly, I have answered them in the negative.
22. Issue No.2: On perusal of the plant at paragraph No.11 the cause of action for the suit arose during first week of April 2012 when the first defendant made telephone call to the plaintiff and thereafter when the first and second defendants met the plaintiff in the guise of purchasing firearms from the plaintiff and ultimately on 11/06/2012 when the first and second defendants met the plaintiff at Kovi Shop at Bangalore and disclosed with the plaintiff that they have carried out a sting operation and demanded for ransom from the plaintiff, within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. So the contentions of the defendants that plaintiff has not shown cause of action in the plaint does not holds good. In my view defendants have miserably failed to provetheir contention on the other hand the plaintiff has proved this issue. Accordingly, I have answered this in the affirmative.
44 O.S.No.4295/2012
23. Issue No.4 :- In the result, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with cost.
Draw the decree accordingly.
[Dictated to the Judgment writer, transcribed & computerized by him, corrected on computer and signed by me then pronounced in the Open Court, dated this the 11th day of October, 2019] (MALLIKARJUNA) XIV Addl. City Civil Judge Bangalore.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff/s:
P.W.1 : M.Ismail Shariff List of documents marked on behalf of the plaintiff/s:
Ex.P.1 : Original Form -X1
Ex.P.2 : original Form -XII
Ex.P.3 : C/c of order sheet in PCR No.226/2012
45 O.S.No.4295/2012
Ex.P.4 : Copy of complaint.
Ex.P.5 : Copy of FIR
Ex.P.6 : Copy of 'B' final report
Ex.P.7 : Copy of Order sheet in CERTIFIED COPY
OF.22920/2012
Ex.P.8 : C/c of complaint
Ex.P.9 : C/c of FIR in Cr.No.183/2012
Ex.P.10 : C/c of charge sheet in C.C.NO.22920/2012 List of witnesses examined on behalf of the defendant/s:
D.W.1 : B.A.Ravi List of documents marked on behalf of the defendant/s :
-NIL-
XIV Addl. City Civil Judge Bangalore.