The court emphasized the need for the court to judge the merits of the complaint and the prejudicial nature of media reporting in defamation cases. It also highlighted that a plaintiff cannot seek restraint against reporting of the suit or proceedings therein and that separate suits involving the same incident may coerce the complainant to give up the complaint.

JUDGMENT :

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

Ia No.15033/2019(exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of.

CS(OS) 554/2019 & IA No.15032/2019(u/O.XXXIX R-1&2 CPC)

3. The plaintiff has instituted this suit for (i) recovery of damages for defamation; (ii) restraining the defendant from further defaming the plaintiff; and, (iii) taking down of the allegedly defamatory content.

4. The allegedly defamatory allegations are with respect to the complaint made by the defendant against the plaintiff of sexual harassment at work place and the legal proceedings emanating there from. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant has been leaking to the media, particularly the electronic media her version of the complaint and the legal proceedings in pursuance thereto.

5. The defamation alleged is of 8th October, 2018, though, it is also the plea that the defendant re-posted the allegations on 10th, 11th and 13th October, 2018. The suit has been instituted first on 9th October, 2019 and re- filed on 22ndOctober,2019 and has come up today before this Court for the first time.

6. It needs to be considered whether re-posting of the allegedly defamatory allegations furnish a fresh cause of action to the plaintiff particularly when the initial posting remains on the electronic media.

7. The counsel for the plaintiff, on enquiry as to how the suit claim for damages is within time, states that the Courts were closed from 2nd to 8th October, 2019 on account of the Dusshera vacations and thus the suit filed on 9th October, 2019 is within time.

8. The plaintiff in the present case has also alleged defamation inter alia by publication in April, 2017 of contents of FIR lodged by defendant against plaintiff and the counsel for the plaintiff, with reference to Youth Bar Association Vs. Union of India, (2016) 9 SCC 473 directing publication of all FIRs, contends that FIRs relating to sexual harassment are exempted there from.

9. There is however no plea in the plaint, of the FIR lodged by defendant against plaintiff having not been published and the counsel for plaintiff states that he will check and the matter be passed over.

10. The counsel for the plaintiff however, on enquiry states that the claim in this suit is not on the basis of the said publication of the contents of the FIR, which was beyond one year preceding the institution of suit.

11. The counsel for the plaintiff informs that CS(OS) 530/2019, filed by one Sriparna Tikekar, against the same defendant and arising out of the same incident, had come up before this Court for admission on 18th October, 2019 and has handed over a copy of the order of that date.

12. Though in CS(OS)530/2019 which had come up on 18th October, 2019, no ex parte orders sought were granted, but the counsel for the plaintiff has today sought to re-argue the matter. It is argued, (a) that the defendant has been successively improving her case and causing prejudice to the plaintiff; (b) from selective release of news by the defendant, the plaintiff is being subjected to a media trial and is suffering; and, (c) that at least the defendant be restrained from going to the media with respect to filing of the present suit by the plaintiff.

13. I have considered the contentions made today by counsel for plaintiff.

14. In Ritesh Properties & Industries Ltd. Vs. Youtube LLC, MANU/DE/3284/2019 I have inter alia held as under:

"11. The case of the plaintiff cannot be equated to other cases coming up before this Court of character assassination without the complainant/accuser disclosing own identity even. Generally such accusations are of sexual harassment/misconduct. In such cases, suits have been entertained and ex parte orders issued to social networking sites, for taking down the impugned content and to disclose particulars of the uploaded of such content. The reason which prevailed was, none can be condemned publically, without having an opportunity to defend him/her self. It was felt that the accuser, in the m