The judgment established the importance of freedom of expression while highlighting the limitations under Article 19(2) of the Constitution and the need for evidence to support claims for compensation.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Ms. Padma Baraik, the petitioner appearing in person, Mrs. Vandana Singh, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Awanish Ranjan Mishra, learned counsel for respondent no.3.

2. This petition has been filed for direction upon respondent nos. 1 and 2 to perform statutory duty to do proper investigation in connection with Ranchi SC/ST Case No.14 of 2022 by arresting respondent no.3 and/or high level enquiry. The prayer is also made for directing the publishing authority (respondent no.3) to desist from publication, sale of novel 'Moy Sushila'. The prayer is also made for direction upon respondent no.3 to pay appropriate compensation, caused due to loss of reputation of the petitioner in the society.

3. The petitioner appearing in person submits that she is a rape victim and her children's right to life, dignity and fundamental right have been deprived by publishing a novel by respondent no.3 'Moy Sushila' which is on the past of this petitioner and she was compelled to commit suicide due to threat and coercion of the society. She submits that FIR being Ranchi SC/ST Case No.14 of 2022, dated 03.02.2022 has been registered under Section 292, 306, 511, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(s)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. She further submits that in spite of registration of the FIR, respondent no.3 has not been arrested. According to her, she is a Scheduled Tribe in the State of Jharkhand. She was married to one Basant Yadav and after one year of marriage, the petitioner filed a complaint as well as case for maintenance against her husband Basant Yadav and she obtained divorce from Basant Yadav. She was again victim of rape by Mohd. Ali and three other accused and Sadar Palamu P.S. Case No.162 of 2002 was registered against them and they have been put on trial. She submits that one FIR being Case No.304 of 2005 was also registered by this petitioner on 02.08.2005 against the then Deputy Inspector General of Police under Section 376, 376(2)(a) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The said case was tried as Sessions Trial No.257 of 2006. She submits that in Sessions Trial No.11 of 2006, the accused Mohd. Ali was convicted for 10 years, however the then Deputy Inspector General of Police was acquitted in Sessions Trial No.257 of 2006 by the learned Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 23.12.2017 which is under challenge before the High Court. She further submits that she is a victim and her apathy was heard by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the order was passed on 20.01.2021 directing the State of Jharkhand to ensure that minor children of the petitioner be provided free education till they attain the age of 14 years, the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi will provide house to the petitioner under Prime Minister Awas Yojna or any other Central or State Scheme, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi and other competent authority shall review the Police security provided to the petitioner from time to time, the District Legal Services Authority, Ranchi on representation made by the petitioner shall render legal services to the petitioner. On these directions, the petition was disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. She submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has protected her and in that view of the matter, 'Moy Sushila' which is a story of her past, is direct attack on the dignity of the petitioner and for that respondent no.3 may be directed to be taken into custody and she is entitled for compensation. On these grounds, she submits that this matter may be handed over to the specialized agency for investigation and the petitioner be provided compensation by the order of this Court.

4. The petitioner has supplied rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed by respondent no.3 in the Court, which has been taken on record.

5. By way of referring rejoinder, she submits that sh