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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document