Back
BOMBAY HIGH COURT - BENCH AT GOA
U. V. BAKRE, J
SHRI LAXMAN JAIRAM MALVANKAR – Appellant
Versus
SMT. RESHMA RAMESH NARVEKAR – Respondent
Second Appeal No. 07 of 2005
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Sudin Usgaonkar, Ms. A. Shirodkar
For the Respondents: Mr. Valmiki Menezes, Ms. M. Conception
The lodging of a police complaint does not constitute defamation unless it is proven false and published with intent to harm.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code - Second Appeal - Whether police complaint is a public document for publication in press; issues of defamation arising from allegations made in a police complaint prior to conviction. (Paras 10, 24)
(B) Defamation - The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove that the police complaint was false or that the publication by the newspaper was intended to defame him. (Paras 8, 23)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff sought compensation for alleged defamation stemming from a newspaper publication regarding a police complaint lodged against him, claiming it caused mental anguish. (Paras 4, 7)
Findings of Court:
The concurrent findings of the Trial and First Appellate Courts were upheld; they concluded there was no proof of defamation since the publication merely reported the complaints made. (Paras 8, 21)
Issues: Whether the publication of a police complaint can be considered defamatory if the allegations remain unproven, and the status of the complaint as a public document. (Paras 10, 24)
Ratio Decidendi: Mere lodging of a police complaint does not equate to defamation; the courts emphasized the need for concrete proof of falsehood in defamation claims. (Paras 22, 23)
Result: Appeal dismissed without any costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations of defamation and the resulting lawsuit. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. court's analysis on evidence and findings. (Para 8 , 14 , 20) |
| 3. arguments regarding the nature of defamation and complaints. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. principle that police complaints require proof of falsehood. (Para 22 , 23) |
| 5. decision resulting in the appeal's dismissal. (Para 25) |
JUDGMENT
This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment, order and decree dated 23/06/2004 passed by the learned Adhoc Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Mapusa (First Appellate Court) in Regular Civil Appeal No. 62 of 2004.
2. The said Regular Civil Appeal No. 62 of 2004 was preferred by the plaintiff of Regular Civil Suit No. 122/2000/C(New) against the judgment, order and decree dated 16/03/2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bicholim (Trial Court).
3. The parties shall be referred to as per their status in the said Regular Civil Suit No. 122/2000/C(New).
4. The plaintiff had filed the said suit against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs. 70,000/- as compensation for lodging false complaint and for publication of libel. The defendant no.1 is the complainant whereas defendant no. 2 is the Editor of the daily news paper “Tarun Bharat”. The defendant no. 1 had lodged the complaint at Bicholim Police Station against the plaintiff and others. According to the plaintiff, the defendant no.1 caused to publish the contents of the said complaint in the daily Marathi news paper “Tarun Bharat”, dated 27/02/1993, published from District Belgaum of Karnataka State, at page no. 7. The plaintiff alleged that defendant no. 2 had published the news item without verifying the truth of the complaint. The plaintiff stated that the said newspaper has circulation in Goa and is circulated in village of Narva and the place of work of the plaintiff, which is Sikeri, Bardez, Goa. The plaintiff stated that he is in service of Taj Hotel at Sikeri. The plaintiff further alleged that he is a respectable and law abiding citizen and that the defendant no. 1, in order to damage the name and reputation of the plaintiff, lodged the false complaint at Bicholim Police Station alleging that the plaintiff along with some of his family members trespassed her Teashop, assaulted her, snatched her mangalsutra and threatened to kill her and caused to publish the news item in the said news paper. According to the plaintiff, he and his family members suffered mental pain and agony. Hence the suit.
5. The Defendant no. 1, in her written statement, admitted that she lodged the police complaint because the plaintiff had committed certain illegal and criminal acts. She alleged that the complaint is not false. However, she denied that she caused the said news item published in the news paper. She also denied that the plaintiff and his family members suffered mental pain and agony as alleged.
6. The Defendant no. 2, in his written statement, stated that in the normal course of collecting news, the representative of Tarun Bharat had visited Bicholim Police Station and the police informed about the complaint lodged by the defendant no. 1 and that the same was published. The defendant no. 2 also denied that the plaintiff and his family members suffered any mental pain or agony.
7. The plaintiff examined himself as PW-1. He produced the extract of publication as Exhibit PW1/C, the legal notice sent to the defendant no.1 as Exhibit PW1/A and reply received to that legal notice as Exhibit PW1/B. The plaintiff also examined two employees of Fort Aguada Beach Resort of Taj Group at Sinquerim, where the plaintiff was working in House-Keeping Department. They are Rama A. Joshi as PW-2 and Sitaram Balchandra Naique Dhargalkar as PW-3. The defendant no. 1 examined herself as DW-1 whereas defendant no. 2 examined its power of attorney holder namely Shri Anant Suryaji Salkar as DW-2.
8. Upon consideration of the entire evidence on record, the Trial Court held that it is an admitted fact that th
