Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. On the basis of the above said pleadings, this Court has framed the following -

Cont'd.. 

                        - 12 -         O.S. No.7223/2010

                      ISSUES

1) Whether the plaintiff proves that on 07.05.09 the defendant No.1 deposed before enquiring officer stating that the plaintiff is involved in kidnapping case and on 23.08.2010 when press meet was call and thereafter on 24.08.2010, 09.09.2010 and 12.09.2010 the defamatory matter was published in the newspaper with on malicious intention and which, caused loss or damage to the reputation and image of the plaintiff as alleged?

- 16 - O.S. No.7223/2010 deposed before the enquiry officer stating that plaintiff is involved in kidnapping case. It is argued plaintiff has also proved in the press meet dated 23-08-2010 and thereafter defendant No.1 has given statement which are per se defamatory. It is argued defendants 3 to 5 have published in their newspaper with malicious intention which caused loss or damage to the reputation and image of the plaintiff. With this submission, Advocate for plaintiff prayed to answer Issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiff.

11. On the other hand, Advocate for defendant has argued and he has also submitted notes of argument. Sum and substance of the notes of argument on behalf of the defendant No.1 that there is no dispute that plaintiff and defendant No.1 are the brothers. It is not in dispute defendant No.1 has lodged complaint before Malur Police Station with allegation that somebody have kidnapped his son for ransom and a case has been registered in Crime No.220/2008. It is argued there is no dispute that plaintiff being brother of defendant No.1 called by the police in connection with Crime No.220/2008 on the basis of the voluntary statement given by the accused of the said case. It is argued though defendant No.1 has approached the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka with a request to give direction to the concerned police to investigate the matter and file final report in connection with Crime No.220/2008 which is pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Cont'd..

- 18 - O.S. No.7223/2010 submission, Advocate for defendant prayed to answer Issue No.1 against the plaintiff.

12. On careful perusal of the oral as well as documentary evidence and on the basis of settled position of law, this Court is of the opinion that plaintiff has miserably failed to prove that on 07-05-2009, defendant No.1 has deposed before the enquiry officer stating that plaintiff is involved in kidnapping case and plaintiff has also failed to prove on 23-08-2010 when press meet was called and thereafter on 24-08-2010, 09-09-2010and 12-09-2010, defendants 2 to 5 at the instigation of the defendant No.1 have published in the newspaper and telecasted in their channels with regard to the plaintiff with an intention to defame the plaintiff and to cause loss or damage to the reputation of the plaintiff. As rightly argued by the Advocate for the defendant there is no dispute with regard to registration of Crime No.220/2008 by Malur police station for offence under Section 363 of I.P.C. It is also not in dispute defendant No.1 has lodged complaint before the police his son Anil was kidnapped. It is also not in dispute Malur police have summoned the plaintiff on 13-11-2009 on the basis of the voluntary statement recorded by the police given by the accused. It is also not in dispute plaintiff being Advocate has obtained anticipatory bail in connection with the said crime number. Further, it is not in dispute one M. Narayana Swamy who is none other than the brother-in-law of the Cont'd..