Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 8234
HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
C.V. BHASKAR REDDY, J
Evnice L Chawngthu – Appellant
Versus
Mr. L Ravichander alias Laxminarayana Ravichander – Respondent
WP/13241/2024
The court ruled that without sufficient evidence to support claims of defamation or violation of rights, a writ petition is not maintainable.
Headnote:(A) Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(2)(v) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120A, 228A, 499, 500, 501, 502 - Writ petition for registration of FIR and damages - Petitioner alleged defamation by respondents through a newspaper article, claiming violation of her rights and seeking action against police inaction - Court found no prima facie case established for the offences alleged under the SC/ST Act - Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to support claims of defamation or violation of rights. (Paras 6, 8)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - The court emphasized that it will not entertain a writ petition unless there is sufficient material to justify the claims made - The court found the allegations to be unsubstantiated and lacking merit. (Paras 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a practicing Advocate, alleged defamation by a Senior Advocate and the publication of false information in a newspaper, claiming damages and the registration of an FIR against the respondents.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the petition lacked merit and no prima facie case was established for the offences claimed.
Issues: The primary issues included whether the publication constituted defamation and if the police's inaction warranted judicial intervention.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the petitioner did not provide adequate evidence to support her claims, and thus, the writ petition could not be entertained.
Result: Writ Petition dismissed.
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner/party-in-person with the following prayer:
“…"to issue a writ, order or direction, more specifically one in the nature of writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the 3rd respondent to expeditiously register an FIR under section 3 of the POA SC ST Act, sections 120A, 1208, 228A, 499, 500, 501, 502 of IPC and any other relevant provision of law, against the 1st and 2nd Respondents within a specific time period, report compliance also within a specific time period, direct the 2nd and 3rd Respondents to jointly and severally award damages of 40 crores to the Petitioner, award exemplary costs, all to be deposited within a specific time frame into the Petitioner's SBI High Court savings bank account number, 62509949700, IFSC code SBIN0020896 and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
It is also prayed that pending the disposal of this writ petition the 2nd Respondent maybe directed to immediately remove the article from all media sites especially but not limited to those online.
It is also prayed that the 2nd Respondent maybe directed to print an apology to the Petitioner to be printed in the main portion of the front, 1st page of Deccan chronicles within one day, in bold letters and report compliance before this Hon’ble court within a specific time period. It is also further prayed that this Hon'ble Court maybe pleased to direct the 4th Respondent to initiate disciplinary proceedings against senior counsel L.Ravichander and report compliance of the same before this Hon’ble Court.”
2. The petitioner states to be a practicing Advocate and also founder of NGO known as “One-won” registered in the year 2014. It is the case of the petitioner that earlier, she instituted W.P.No.23116 of 2020, wherein the police were found guilty of arresting her without issuing notice as required under Section 41A Cr.P.C and costs of Rs.50,000/- was imposed on the State. It is further case of the petitioner that the respondent No.1, who is the Senior Advocate of this Court is not in a position to tolerate the success achieved by her and became jealous and hatched a criminal conspiracy with respondent No.2 with the sole intention of damaging her reputation and published a defamatory article in the Deccan Chronicle newspaper circulated in the State of Telangana, inter alia stating that several FIRs are pending against the petitioner. It is also case of the petitioner that even though the respondent No.1 has knowledge that no case is pending against her, published the said article, which action amounts to victimising her and violation of the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vishakha and others v. State of Rajasthan1. It is further case of the petitioner that she filed an e-mail complaint on the file of Station House Officer, Nallakunta Police Station but even after lapse of three months, the police have not registered any case and the said action amounts to violation of the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lalitha Kumari vs. State of U.P 2. It is further case of the petitioner that even though she made a complaint to the respondent No.4-Bar Council of India against the respondent No.1, no action has been taken and the respondent
1 AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT 3011
2 (2013) 14 SCR 713
No.3 aided and abetted the offences committed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and failed to perform his duties. It is further case of the petitioner that for the above said acts of the respondents, she suffered mental agony as the said information/publication still exists, every time someone searches for her name in Google. Hence the writ petition.
3. Heard the submissions of the petitioner as party-in-person, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondent No.3 and perused the record.
4. The petitioner is a practicing Advocate and she levelled allegations against the Senior Advocate of this Co
