VINOJ SHARMA Vs. SUNIL KUMAR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Applicants are defendants No.3 and 7 in the main suit. On their service, they had put in appearance and instead of filing the written statement filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, registered as OMP No.207 of 2013 for rejection of the plaint. The said application on filing the present one came to be disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2015, which reads as follow:

(2.) Defendants No.3 and 7 have sought their names to be deleted from the array of parties on the grounds that they have not lodged any prosecution against the non-applicant-plaintiff and rather published a news-item in the English daily "Hindustan Times" in its issue dated 8.11.2006 under the caption "POLICE SECURITY TO ETO, COP BOOKED" in the capacity of Bureau Chief and Editor of the said newspaper. The news-item relates to complaints made by defendant No.1 to Superintendent of Police, Sirmaur District at Nahan and Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh, culminated into registration of FIR No.231 of 2006 under Sections 353, 186, 189 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and another FIR No.233 of 2006 under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act at Police Station State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Nahan, District Sirmaur. Also that the suit has been filed on 11.11.2012 after a gap of six years falsely against the applicants-defendants, as according to them, there is no denial to the registration of two FIRs at the instance of defendant No.1 against the plaintiff and if they reported the matter in relation to those FIRs they did it well within the frame of press envisaged under Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India. The only allegations against them in the entire plaint are that they have falsely reported the matter and it is not the case of plaintiff that the prosecution against him was launched at their instance.

(3.) In reply, the stand is that this application is not maintainable in view of the rejection of earlier application (OMP No.207 of 2013) and also that since the suit has been filed for recovery of damages on account of malicious prosecution of the plaintiff and on account of defamation the applicants-defendants who allegedly connived with defendant No.1 to harm his reputation in the public at large, cannot escape from their liability. It is also pointed out that the contents of the news-items itself demonstrate that they have caused harm to the image of the plaintiff and also that they can only publish the news-items after verifying the factual position. The prosecution of the plaintiff by defendant No.1 is in connivance with the applicants-defendants and as such the defendants are stated to be jointly and severally liable to be punished for their wrongs.