Can Defamation/Malicious Prosecution NEVER be initiated till competent court helds that case filed was false?

Here below is the High Court judgement supporting what I have mentioned above.

Please go through 11th paragraph of this judgement and suggest what you feel.

SUBJECT : SUIT FOR DAMAGES



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI



Date of Reserve: January 22, 2009

Date of Order: March 02, 2009

IA No.10367/2007 in CS(OS) 569/2006

Prof. Imtiaz Ahmad ...Plaintiff

Through: Mr. Abhay N. Da, Advocate

Versus

Durdana Zamir ...Defendant

Through: Mr. Bahar U. Burai with Mr. Hanif Mohammad, Advocates

JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

ORDER

IA No.10367/2007

1. This suit has been filed by the plaintiff for damages on account of defamation and

for permanent injunction on the ground that defendant filed a complaint before the Crime

Against Women (CAW) Cell allegedly making defamatory allegations against him. The

plaintiff claimed damages to the tune of Rs.20 lac from the defendant.

2. The excerpts of the complaint which, according to the plaintiff amounted to his

defamation and entitled him to damages are as follows:

“(i) On the issue of dowry, my husband’s mother Jamila Begum, Nand (husband’s

sister Rakahanda), Second Nand (Rafia), my husband’s Khala Hasina and second Khala

Sabina and Khaloo Imtiaz Ahmad Ansari raised considerable noise (Hangama) and they

were calm down by efforts of my relatives.

(ii) In my in-laws’ house, my husband’s Khala (Aunt) and Khaloo (uncle), who lives

in JNU, Prof. Imtiaz Ahmad and his wife Sabina has considerable influence (dakhal).

(iii) You are requested to help me………….to see that there is no interference in my

family affairs of my husband’s aunt and uncle who live in JNU”.

3. It is contended by the plaintiff that plaintiff was a highly reputed person. He was a

professor of Sociology at JNU. He was internationally known and was visiting professor

in number of universities in USA, Canada, Italy and UK. He was a man of international

academic standards and had taken part in number of national and international

conferences and was a familiar voice on AIR, BBC, NDTV, ETV etc. He stated that he

had no contact with the defendant’s family or with the family of her husband except that

he had attended the marriage. At one point of time, the relations between defendant and

her husband became estranged and she had come to his house accompanied by her father,

mother and brother and asked him to interfere in the matter. However, since he was not

willing to take any interest or intervene in the matter, he refused. He stated that on the

basis of the complaint made by the defendant, an FIR No.611 under Sections 406, 498A

and 34 Indian Penal Code was registered by the police and he had to obtain anticipatory

bail.

4. It is submitted by plaintiff that in the complaint made by defendant, he has been

portrayed as a perpetrator of dowry demand and in his name Ansari has been deliberately

added since ‘Ansaris’ belong to lower community viz ‘Julaha’. He claimed that he was

renowned social psychologist and because of the assertions made by the defendant in her

complaint to CAW Cell and other authorities, his reputation received severe dent in

academic circles and among his colleagues and also towards the mammoth work that he

has done for the betterment of the society in general.

5. Defendant has made the instant application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC stating

therein that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action and was liable to be

dismissed. The claim of the plaintiff was based upon the facts stated in a complaint made

by the defendant to lawful authorities regarding her grievance against her in-laws. The

FIR lodged by her was under investigation and it has not been held by any Court that the

allegations made by the complainant (defendant herein) were false.

6. During arguments, it was also submitted that even if the allegations are taken per

se correct, no case for defamation of the plaintiff was made out from the averments made

in the complaint. Learned counsel for the plaintiff, however, denied that the plaint does

not disclose any cause of action and submitted that the allegations made in the complaint

by the defendant has lowered the image of the plaintiff in the eyes of society.

7. Under law of defamation, the test of defamatory nature of a statement is its

tendency to incite an adverse opinion or feeling of other persons towards the Plaintiff. A

statement is to be judged by the standard of the ordinary, right thinking members of the

society at the relevant time. The words must have resulted in the Plaintiff to be shunned

or evaded or regarded with the feeling of hatred, contempt, ridicule, fear, dislike or disesteem

or to convey an imputation to him or disparaging him or his office, profession,

calling, trade or business. The defamation is a wrong done by a person to another's

reputation. Since, it is considered that a man's reputation, in a way, is his property and

reputation may be considered to be more valuable than any other form of property.

Reputation of a man primarily and basically is the opinion of friends, relatives,

acquittance or general public about a man. It is his esteem in the eyes of others. The

reputation spread by communication of thought and information from one to another.

Where a person alleges that his reputation has been damaged, it only means he has been

lowered in the eyes of right thinking persons of the society or his friends/relatives. It is

not enough for a person to sue for words which merely injure his feeling or cause

annoyance to him. Injury to feeling of a man cannot be made a basis for claiming of

damages on the ground of defamation. Thus, the words must be such which prejudice a

man's reputation and are so offensive so as to lower a man's dignity in the eyes of others.

Insult in itself is not a cause of action for damages on the ground of defamation.

8. Where the words are used without giving impression of an oblique meaning but

the Plaintiff pleads an innuendo, asking the Court to read the words in a manner in which

the Plaintiff himself understands it, the Plaintiff has to plead that the libel was understood

by the readers with the knowledge of subject or extensive facts as was being understood

by the Plaintiff.

9. The plaintiff’s submissions that adding of caste”Ansari” against his name was per

say defamatory is very strange. The plaintiff claims to be the professor of sociology

working for the betterment of the society. If a professor of sociology has a notion and

thought that “Ansari” was a caste of lower class since it represents “Julaha’ community, I

can only take pity upon such ‘highly respected’ and qualified professors’. ‘Julaha’ means

‘weavers’. If those who weave clothes so that men may dress themselves, are of lower

caste than those who get dressed and are ungrateful must be of much lower caste, even if

they are professors. The allegations of plaintiff, who is professor are painful. The

Constitution of India does not recognize that caste of any person confers any superiority

or inferiority on him vis-à-vis others. The Constitution only recognizes deprived classes

under which Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes fall and mandates positive action only

to bring them at par with the other members of the society so that they are not

discriminated by so-called high castes people. If a professor of sociology in our country

has this standard of social betterment, then God help this society.

10. The other imputations made to the defendant are also not defamatory in nature. It

is not the case of the plaintiff that he was not present at the marriage. It is the case of the

plaintiff himself that he attended the marriage of the defendant. If it is stated that a

Hungama was created by many from in-laws of the defendant, including the plaintiff, that

does not mean that the defendant made defamatory imputations against the plaintiff or the

defendant made a statement to cause an adverse opinion or hatred feelings of other

persons towards the plaintiff. As has already been observed above the statement is to be

judged by the standard of an ordinary person. The alleged words must have resulted in

the plaintiff to be shunned or evaded or inculcated a feeling of hatred and condemn. The

plaintiff continues to be the professor in JNU and he continues to a known voice at

different TV Channels. It is not the case that people have abandoned him or boycotted

him because of this imputation. The plaintiff has not named a single person who had

changed his opinion after filing of the complaint by the defendant.

11. Moreover, the defendant had a right to make complaints of her grievances to the

authorities. Whenever a person makes a complaint against someone to the lawful

authorities and in that complaint he makes imputations against the person complained of,

it cannot be considered that the person has publicized or publicly made defamatory

averments against a person. If a prosecution is initiated against the person on the basis of

such averments and the person is acquitted holding that the complaint was false, then

only a cause of action arises against the complainant for launching a case for false

prosecution or for damages on other grounds. Until and unless a competent court holds

that complaint was false, no cause of action arises. Approaching a competent authority

and praying that the authority should come to the rescue of the complainant and prevent

inference of the plaintiff in the family affairs of the defendant cannot amount to a

defamatory imputation per se and even if it is published, it does not tend to show that the

defendant had intended to lower the reputation of the plaintiff.

12. In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, I consider that the plaint, even if

taken to be true, does not disclose any cause of action against the plaintiff. The suit of the

plaintiff is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.