Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
HARISH TANDON, PRASENJIT BISWAS, JJ.
Soumendra Kumar Biswas - Appellant
Versus
Sheshadri Goswami & Ors. – Respondents
FMAT 72 of 2023, CAN 1 of 2023
Decided On : 18-10-2023
Defamation - Injunction - Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 49 IPC, Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India - The judgment discusses the application of defamation laws, the right to freedom of speech and expression, and the power of the court to grant injunction in defamation suits.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a suit claiming compensation for defamatory statements made against him by the respondents. The trial court refused to pass an ad interim order of injunction, stating that the appellant could be compensated in monetary form.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that in a suit based on defamation, the court has the power to grant an injunction, as the continuing wrong has a larger impact on the reputation of a person. The court referred to previous judgments and emphasized the need to balance the right to freedom of speech and expression with reasonable restrictions imposed by statutory provisions.
Issues: The issues revolved around the power of the court to grant injunction in defamation suits and the balancing of the right to freedom of speech and expression with reasonable restrictions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the right to freedom of speech and expression is not absolute and is circumscribed by reasonable restrictions. It held that the court is not denuded of power to grant injunction in a defamation suit containing the monetary relief.
Final Decision: The court granted an ad interim order of injunction restraining the defendant from posting the defamatory letter and directed the trial court to dispose of the application for temporary injunction expeditiously.
JUDGMENT :
Harish Tandon, J.
Despite the service having effected upon the respondent there is no appearance on their behalf. The supplementary affidavit filed by the plaintiff/appellant containing various documents revealing that the address at which the service is effected is the address shown by the respondent and, therefore, the service should be treated to have been effected upon them.
2. We, thus, proceeded to dispose of the appeal in their absence as they did not appear despite the service having effected upon them.
3. The present appeal arises from an order dated 7th January, 2023 and 16th January, 2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, 5th Court, Alipore in MS no. 13 of 2023 filed by the appellant claiming compensation/damages for the defamatory statement made against him by the defendants along with the permanent injunction restraining the defendant/respondent from publishing and/or approaching the persons of the society with the notion that the plaintiff has been disclosed in relation to the affairs of the then company in which he held the post of a Director. The entire claim in the plaint is founded upon a purported letter dated 1st December, 2022 claimed to have been issued by the Defendant no. 1 to the learned Public Prosecutor, High Court, Calcutta, Mr. Bijon Nag (Chairman, IFB Group) and the plaintiff (Director of IFB Group). In the said letter, the said Respondent no. 1 expressly averred that the several Criminal cases which are mentioned therein are filed with ill motives motivatedly in order to stop the hearing of the pending cases in the Trial Court being Case no. 287 GR no. 1881 arising out of Shakespeare Sarani Police Station. It is categorically asserted that the plaintiff along with the other persons named therein intended to jeopardise the Respondent no. 1 & Ors. by filing the false case one after another and, therefore, appropriate steps are to be taken so that all those matters which are pending, as mentioned therein may be listed urgently for hearing. The aforesaid statements and the demeanour of the respondents herein have a larger impact on the reputation acquired by the plaintiff/appellant during his service career and also in a public and private life as approaches are made to the relatives, friends and the right thinking persons who always have a due regard for the plaintiff/appellant.
4. The facts, as unfurled, from the plaint are that on the basis of the written complaint lodged by the Respondent no. 1 on behalf of the IFB Investors Forum before the Shakespeare Sarani Police Station being Case no. 287 of 2015. An investigation was conducted by the police and ultimately no prima facie materials were unearthed which would amount to proving all the charges levied against the plaintiff/appellant. The final report was submitted before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Calcutta and by an order dated 01.06.2017 the said Judicial Officer accepted the closer petition while dropping the proceedings. The said order was challenged before the High Court by the Respondent no. 1 on behalf of the IFB Investors Forum in revision which was registered as CRR no. 646 of 2018 which was disposed of granting liberty to file an application under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Pursuant to the said liberty having granted a protest petition was filed by the Respondent no. 1 on behalf of the said forum for further investigation into the matter. The said protest petition was further replaced by another protest petition by the Respondent no. 1 claiming himself to the Secretary of the other forum without serving a copy thereafter upon the plaintiff/appellant.
5. Suppressing the entire fact, another complaint case was registered with the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Calcutta against the appellant and Ors. making the self same allegations which gave rise to registration of the Shakespeare Sarani Police Station Case no. 287 of 2015, which was dismissed by the said Chief Metropolitan M
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court has the power to grant injunction in defamation suits, and the right to freedom of speech and expression is not absolute but is circ....
The judgment established the need to protect reputation from unsubstantiated allegations and highlighted the balance between freedom of speech and the right to safeguard reputation.
The judgment establishes that defamatory statements can be restrained by injunction if they threaten irreparable harm to a person's reputation, balancing free speech with the right to reputation.
The court ruled that the right to freedom of speech takes precedence over defamation claims unless a strong prima facie case is established, underscoring the necessity to balance fundamental rights.
The balance between the right to privacy and freedom of expression must be upheld, emphasizing that claims of defamation require full trial for verification.
The judgment established the balance between freedom of speech and expression and the right to reputation, and granted interim relief to protect the reputation of the plaintiffs.
The right to freedom of speech and expression is protected, but it does not entitle anyone to resort to speech that is defamatory. In a defamation suit, the Defendant has the burden of proving the tr....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
