PULLAN
Udai Ram – Appellant
Versus
Gobardhan – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Pullan, J. - The plaintiff, who is the appellant before me, sued for damages because of certain statements made about him in a complaint filed by the respondent in a criminal Court. Damages were allowed by the Court of first instance but not in the lower appellate Court. The Judge of the Court below has referred to the Full Bench ruling reported as Chunni Lal v. Narsingh Das [1918] 40 All. 841, which is conclusive authority that in India as in England a complaint made in a Court of Justice has absolute privilege. It is argued here that this does not apply to a statement made about a third party in a complaint. Now, it may be that the plaintiff's name does not figure as one of the accused persons in the complaint, which was made by the respondent, but the complaint is very clearly made against him. It is alleged that it is he who has enmity against the complainant and who has conspired with the accused persons in order that they should commit the assault of which the complainant complains. Thus, virtually, it is a complaint against the plaintiff and I see no reason to differ from the view taken by the lower appellate Court on this point.
2. A second plea is raised here to the
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.