The rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC cannot be partial; it must be either wholly accepted or entirely dismissed, maintaining the principles of justice and procedural correctness.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)

This appeal is filed by the appellant/plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 12.08.2024 passed by the learned X Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, (CCH-26), on I.A. Nos.10, 11 and 13 in Original Suit No.3813 of 2023.

2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court. The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants.

3. The brief facts of the plaintiff's case are under:

The plaintiff is a business man, having high reputation in society, due to his business accomplishments, thus, became public figure in the city of Bengaluru and entire State of Karnataka. On 25.05.2021, defendant No.4, Hema S. Raju, lodged a complaint before Deputy Superintendent of Police, Special Task Force, BDA, making allegations that she represents some owners of lands at Bengaluru, which were acquired by the BDA for formation of Arkavathi Layout and the plaintiff allegedly operates in dealing with sites and lands belonging to BDA. Hence, the Task Force, BDA, issued notice to the plaintiff to which, the plaintiff responded vide his reply dated 24.06.2021, later, the BDA after investigation, passed orders on 06.08.2021, wherein, it was found that the complaint lodged by defendant No.4 regarding "illegal financial transactions" lacks evidence and the allegation against the plaintiff is not proved. Thus, defendant No.4 filed another identical complaint before the DCP, Central Division, dated 18.10.2021, on the basis of which, the DCP, forwarded it through an endorsement dated 21.10.2021, to R.T. Nagar Police Station. Hence, R.T. Nagar Police issued notice to the plaintiff, for which, the plaintiff has given reply on 01.11.2021. The investigation on the complaint was still pending for adjudication. In the meanwhile, defendant No.1, Ashwathgowda, issued several notices to defendant No.4 to appear before him along with the documents, but, defendant No.4 did not appear before him. On 15.11.2021, defendant No.4 filed one more complaint making similar allegations and on that basis, defendant Nos.1 to 3 have registered a complaint on 16.11.2021 against the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 being the Inspector of R.T. Nagar Police Station, defendant No.2 being the Assistant Commissioner of Police, defendant No.3 being the Deputy Commissioner of Police, maliciously registered an F.I.R. against the plaintiff in Crime No.254 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 506 of IPC.

4. Being aggrieved by the registration of F.I.R., the appellant/plaintiff approached this Court in Criminal Petition No.9116 of 2021 for quashing of the F.I.R. The learned Single Judge after hearing the matter, allowed the petition by quashing the F.I.R in Crime No.254 of 2021 of R T Nagar Police Station. While quashing the F.I.R., the learned Single Judge observed that there was no material found for any kind of misappropriation of property by the petitioner therein/appellant. The Court had also observed that defendant No.4 is a broker and not a land owner and in fact, she has misrepresented the petitioner therein/appellant herein in her complaint. Thus, the appellant has taken a contention that the action of the respondents/defendants is only with an intention to defame him, his reputation and personal standing within society. Hence, the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, to declar