Justice Dhingra Explains Defamation – 2009

Justice Dhingra explains defamation in this judgment. In other words, he explains the meaning of defamation and when to file or not file for defamation.

7.Under law of defamation, the test of defamatory nature of a statement is its tendency to incite an adverse opinion or feeling of other persons towards the Plaintiff. A statement is to be judged by the standard of the ordinary, right-thinking members of the society at the relevant time. The words must have resulted in the Plaintiff to be shunned or evaded or CS (OS) 569.06 Prof. Imtiaz Ahmad vs. Durdana Zamir regarded with the feeling of hatred, contempt, ridicule, fear, dislike or dis- esteem or to convey an imputation to him or disparaging him or his office, profession, calling, trade or business. The defamation is a wrong done by a person to another’s reputation. Since, it is considered that a man’s reputation, in a way, is his property and reputation may be considered to be more valuable than any other form of property. Reputation of a man primarily and basically is the opinion of friends, relatives, acquaintance or general public about a man. It is his esteem in the eyes of others. The reputation spread by communication of thought and information from one to another. Where a person alleges that his reputation has been damaged, it only means he has been lowered in the eyes of right thinking persons of the society or his friends/relatives. It is not enough for a person to sue for words, which merely injure his feeling or cause annoyance to him. Injury to feeling of a man cannot be made a basis for claiming of damages on the ground of defamation. Thus, the words must be such, which prejudice a man’s reputation and are so offensive so as to lower a man’s dignity in the eyes of others. Insult in itself is not a cause of action for damages on the ground of defamation.

In the event of the lodging of a false complaint, he explains what action to take:

Whenever a person makes a complaint against someone to the lawful authorities and in that complaint he makes imputations against the person complained of, it cannot be considered that the person has publicized or publicly made defamatory averments against a person. If a prosecution is initiated against the person on the basis of such averments and the person is acquitted holding that the complaint was false, then only a cause of action arises against the complainant for launching a case for false prosecution or for damages on other grounds. Until and unless a competent court holds that complaint was false, no cause of action arises.

Here is the judgment IA No.10367/2007:

J Dhingra-Explains-Defamation-2009

_____________________________________________-

Justice Regupathy, Chennai HC: Mechanical Judicial Remand Is ILLEGAL

It is an established fact that the Indian Judiciary, higher or lower is corrupt. The recent exposes regarding the PF scam and the Punjab HC wiretap scandals have revealed the extent of the rot.

A the lower level, the mechanical remand of the accused in 498A cases by lower court magistrates is rampant.

My mother and sister were remanded for 11 days by such a  magistrate. He was bribed by my ex-father-in-law in the belief that I would pay up and settle the case if I my family was jailed.

This practice of remanding innocents is illegal. This was declared as such by the  Justice Regupathy of the Chennai HC. This is what he has to say:

(M.P. No.1/2008 in Criminal Original Petition No.10896/2008 filed by Tr.Romaiah)

• When the investigating officers seek for remand of the accused, the Magistrates must examine the necessity for the same and only where there are valid grounds for believing that the accusation or information is well- founded and it appears that the investigation cannot be completed within a period of 24 hours, remand may be ordered. Violation of human rights and infringement of personal liberties must be viewed seriously. Except in cases of grave nature viz., dowry death, murder, suicide, hurt, etc., in other matters like matrimonial disputes between spouses where it may not take much time for the police officer to interrogate/investigate, remand should not be ordered mechanically, for, remand of an accused by a Magistrate is not automatic one on the mere request of the investigating officer and sufficient grounds must exist for the Magistrate to exercise the power of remand.
• Of course, it is provided in the Code that remand should not exceed 15 days at a time, but, it does not mean that in all cases, remand for 15 days should be ordered invariably.
• Though the law is manifestly clear, plain and patent, in many cases, it is witnessed that, on the mere request of the investigating officers, remand is ordered mechanically without application of mind and such illegal practice must be avoided.
• The preliminary job of an Investigating Officer including that of the Officers posted at the All Women Police Stations is only to collect the materials in respect of the dispute they are investigating and place the same before the court/Magistrate. For adjudicating any issue, the dispute must be forwarded only to the learned Magistrate or the Family court. In this type of fragile matters, in the name of ‘petition enquiry’ or investigation after registration of F.I.R., the police should not be allowed to conduct lengthy panchayats in police stations.

When applying for bail, or when being presented before a magistrate, please have a copy of Justics Regupathy’s orders with you. They are applicable all over India by the doctrine of binding precedence and because the Code Of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is the national code.

Besides, the right to life and liberty is a guaranteed, cherished,  FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT, which these magistrates can’t and shouldn’t violate for any reason, except just cause.

____________________________________________________________

US State Dept Describes The Indian Criminal Justice System

Click on the text in red to go to the State Dept website on India Travel Info

==============================================

CRIMINAL PENALTIES:

While in a foreign country, a U.S. citizen is subject to that country’s laws and regulations, which sometimes differ significantly from those in the United States and may not afford the protections available to the individual under U.S. law.  Penalties for breaking the law can be more severe than in the United States for similar offenses.  Persons violating Indian laws, even unknowingly, may be expelled, arrested or imprisoned.  For example, certain comments or gestures towards women, Indian national symbols, or religion that are legal in the United States may be considered a criminal violation in India, subjecting the accused to possible fines or imprisonment. 

* Furthermore, since the police may arrest anyone who is accused of committing a crime (even if the allegation is frivolous in nature), the Indian criminal justice system is often used to escalate personal disagreements into criminal charges.  This practice has been increasingly exploited by dissatisfied business partners, contractors, estranged spouses, or other persons with whom the U.S. citizen has a disagreement, occasionally resulting in the jailing of U.S. citizens pending resolution of their disputes.  At the very least, such circumstances can delay the U.S. citizen’s timely departure from India, and may result in an unintended long-term stay in the country.  Corruption in India, especially at local levels, is a concern, as evidenced by Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index of 3.5, ranking India in 72nd place of the world’s countries.

Penalties for possession, use, or trafficking in illegal drugs in India are severe, and convicted offenders can expect long jail sentences and heavy fines.  Engaging in sexual conduct with children or using or disseminating child pornography in India is a crime, and is prosecutable in the United States.  Please see our information on Criminal Penalties.

*NOTE:

The State Dept is being factually incorrect when it states that:

“Furthermore, since the police may arrest anyone who is accused of committing a crime (even if the allegation is frivolous in nature)”

In fact, arrests in India are governed by the Supreme Court Judgment of Joginder Kumar Vs State Of UP. This judgment clearly states:

“No arrest can be made because it is lawful for the police officer to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing. The justification for the exercise of it is quite another. The police officer must be able to justify the arrest apart from his power to do so. Arrest and detention in police lock-up of a person can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person. It would be prudent for a police officer in the interest of protection of the constitutional rights of a citizen and perhaps in his own interest that no arrest should be made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness and bona fides of a complaint and a reasonable belief both as to the person’s complicity and even so as to the need to effect arrest. Denying a person of his liberty is a serious matter. The recommendations of the Police Commission merely reflect the constitutional concomitants of the fundamental right to personal liberty and freedom. A person is not liable to arrest merely on the suspicion of complicity in an offence. There must be some reasonable justification in the opinion of the officer effecting the arrest that such arrest is necessary and justified.

Corrupt and/or illiterate magistrates in the lower courts often remand people applying for bail to judicial or police custody for days on end. This practice is illegal too as Justice Regupathy of the Chennai HC states in the order below:

• Justice Regupathy, Chennai HC: Mechanical Judicial Remand Is ILLEGAL

______________________________________

MOIA Minister Vayalar Ravi’s Profile

Got this from TOI.  Here is his profile:

AGE: 72
ASSETS: Rs 0.5cr    (only a $100,000 ?.  Hmmmmmm…..)
EDUCATION: MA, LLB (Ernakulam)

An old Congress hand from Kerala, Ravi was an able Union minister for overseas Indian affairs and minister for parliamentary affairs in the outgoing Cabinet. His hometown of Vayalar has been the vortex of many peasant struggles, and Ravi was founder-president of the Kerala Students Union. A contemporary of A K Antony, the two fought shoulderto-shoulder to build the state’s Youth Congress. In 1971, he was first elected to the Lok Sabha in 1971 from Chirayinkil , which after the new electoral boundaries, falls in the Attingal constituency. He was re-elected in 1977 and in 1982 became state home minister, but stepped down four years later over differences with chief minister K Karunakaran. Ravi has also exchanged words, strong words, with the worthies at the Guruvayur temple about purification rituals. His wife Maria Francis, popularly known as Mercy Ravi, is a columnist and former MLA from Kottayam. As minister for overseas Indian affairs he has presided over Pravasi Bharatiya Diwas and is said to be keen on retaining the ministry that allowed him frequent Gulf trips. He has been criticised for reducing the ministry to non-resident Kerealite affairs and accused of sluggishness in amending the emigration act and giving voting rights to NRIs. He has to his credit labour agreements and social security agreements that will benefit overseas workers.

_______________________________________________________

Actor Prashant’s Story Covered By Deccan Chronicle

Here is the link to the article:

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/supplementarty/cheated-love-381

You can read his final report here:  Prashant 498a Final Report (pdf)

Wedding Pic

The article in full in case it disappears with apologies to DC:

Cheated in love

By Prashanth

Jun 07 2009

Most young men would want to someday fall in love, get married and settle down. Unfortunately, in my case, things did not quite go as per plan. Less than four months into my marriage, my wife, Grahalakshmi walked out and headed to her parents’ home. Before leaving though, she made her intentions clear — she wanted a divorce and an alimony, amounting to anything between Rs 5 crore and Rs 50 crore.

I was baffled by her behaviour at first, unable to comprehend the logic behind her actions. I tried reasoning with her, attempting to figure out a way to reconcile. But, I soon realised there was no room for compromise in her stance. She told me she’d make me run from pillar to post once she filed a case of dowry harassment under Section 498(A) against me.

Section 498(A) is akin to POTA (Prevention of Terrorist Activities Act); it is a non-bailable offence. A woman can walk into a police station, give a statement against her husband and get him or his entire family arrested on charges of harassment for dowry.

What is ironic and distressing is that a law meant to protect the rights of women is being exploited for wrong reasons. As a result, even the veracity of a genuine complainant could come under the scanner in future.

I put my film career on hold during these four tumultuous years. I didn’t want my producers and friends to suffer at my cost. But then, the onslaught was only beginning. Months after my wife filed the case, an anonymous benefactor told me that Grahalakshmi was already married to someone much before she tied the knot with me. One night as I frantically ran a search through the government’s online registry, my worst fears were confirmed. The revelation turned the case in my favour.

Throughout the duration of our trial, Grahalakshmi re-invented facts and fabricated new lies. Later she proceeded to file an affidavit stating I had forged the documents pertaining to her earlier marriage. Rather than shocked, I was saddened; why would someone throw everything good about one’s life right out of the window? I had struggled hard to make a name for myself in the film industry and I had a decent reputation. I could have given her and our child a good life, but it wasn’t meant to be.

Although this was a trial by fire, I was blessed to have the support of several do-gooders. Everyone from my parents, to my sister, my friends in the film fraternity in Chennai, even petitioners who had come to court to find solutions to their own problems lent me their moral support.

The court annulled my marriage to Grahalakshmi on grounds of misrepresented facts. But the custody of my son has been granted to her until he’s an adult. I am still hopeful about a good future for him. Looking back, I realised that everything that I had undergone was a part of Thiruvilayadal (divine games). I was chosen by God to serve as a cautionary tale for future generations when it comes to issues of matrimony. I am grateful to God for being blessed with a great family, loyal friends and a good life.

Though having faced such hurdles in life, my faith in love and marriage has not been shaken. I still believe in the power of love and the institution of marriage. Nevertheless, I would like to warn youngsters treating marriage with complacency. It’s not a relationship of convenience and they shouldn’t even consider divorce as an option. For now, I’m just focussing on my career in films and looking ahead at life with a renewed sense of hope and ambition.

As told to Bijoy Bharathan

___________________________

SC: Hubby Can’t Be Usual Suspect In Dowry Death

From DNA India:

http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1262380

New Delhi: The needle of suspicion does not necessarily point to husband and in-laws if a woman dies within a year or so of marriage, the Supreme Court (SC) has ruled. It cannot be treated as cruelty for dowry and the in-laws cannot be convicted of causing dowry death, the court said.

The judgment came on an appeal by Suresh Kumar Singh who was sentenced to seven years by an UP court under IPC section 304-B (dowry death) for causing the death of wife Asha Devi on December 8, 1993. The Allahabad high court confirmed the sentence.
Asha’s family alleged that Singh and his parents had harassed her demanding gold ornaments a year ago and as such, they were to blame for her death.

SC, however, said as the alleged demand for dowry was made over a year prior to Asha’s death, it could not be considered cruelty leading to death.

“Harassment a year prior to the death without something more, in our opinion, could not have been considered cruelty inflicted soon before the death of the wife. It does not satisfy the proximity test,” justices SB Sinha and Mukandakam Sharma held, negating the prosecution’s assertion that in case of death of a married woman within seven years of marriage, husband and in-laws were liable to face the dowry death charge.

To invite conviction under section 304-B, it is necessary that “soon before her death”, the woman must have been subjected to cruelty by husband or his relatives in connection with dowry, SC said.

_______________________________________________

Bride And Kin In Dock For Giving Dowry, Filing 498A

This is an article from the Times Of India. Pasting an excerpt.

“But Sunil also went to court, seeking registration of an FIR against the girl and her family for fulfilling his dowry demands.
Citing the dowry prohibition Act which has a provision for punishment for giving dowry, Sunil moved court in August 2008, seeking action against his wife and in-laws under Section 156(3) CrPC as the police was refusing to register the FIR against the girl’s family for giving dowry. ”

The article is here

You can also read about how Advocate Pradeep Nawani did the same here:

Advocate Pradeep Nawani Nails The Wife, The In Laws And Corrupt Cops

_____________________________________________

Now, bride and kin in dock for dowry 7 Jun 2009, 0130 hrs IST, Smriti Singh, TNN

NEW DELHI: In the first such order in the capital, a trial court has asked the police to register an FIR against six members of a family, including the bride, for giving dowry to the groom’s family. There was trouble between Sunil and Latika (both names changed) just a year after they got married on January 31, 2004. Latika left for her maternal home on August 4, 2005 and filed a dowry harassment case against Sunil and his family with ACP, anti-dowry cell. She alleged that her family spent more than Rs 10 lakh on the marriage, and gave Rs 2 lakh in cash for a car and another Rs 1.15 lakh as dowry. A case was registered against Sunil and his family under Section 498(A), 406 and 34 of the IPC. But Sunil also went to court, seeking registration of an FIR against the girl and her family for fulfilling his dowry demands. Citing the dowry prohibition Act which has a provision for punishment for giving dowry, Sunil moved court in August 2008, seeking action against his wife and in-laws under Section 156(3) CrPC as the police was refusing to register the FIR against the girl’s family for giving dowry. In the petition filed through his counsel Pradeep Nawani, he asked that an FIR be registered against the girl and her family under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act, which is punishable upto five years in jail with fine not less than Rs 15,000 or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more. Counsel Nawani also relied on a high court judgment which stated that the police should simultaneously register an FIR against the girl and her family for giving dowry. Metropolitan Magistrate Neeraj Gaur observed that giving dowry was a cognisable offence and directed the station house officer (SHO) of Model Town police station to register an FIR. The court also asked the SHO to set an investigation into motion against Latika and five other members of her family. // <![CDATA[ var zz=0;var sldsh=0; var bellyaddiv = ‘ ‘; var stindex=100; var stp=150; var taglen=0; var tmp; var tagcheck = new Array(“div”,”span”,”br”,”font”,”a”); var storycontent = document.getElementById(“storydiv”).innerHTML; var firstpara = storycontent.substring(0,storycontent.toLowerCase().indexOf(” “)).toLowerCase(); function findptt(cnt){ zz++; if(zz == 10)return; var xxx=-1,yyy=-1; var ccnt = cnt; for(ii=0; ii < tagcheck.length; ii++){ xxx = ccnt.indexOf(“<“+tagcheck[ii]); if(xxx != -1 && xxx < 150){ stp = stp; var tmp1 = ccnt.substring(ccnt.indexOf(“”); if(yyy != -1){ taglen += yyy; stp = stp + yyy; yyy+=1; } break; taglen = taglen + tagcheck[ii].length + 3; } } if(xxx == -1 || xxx >= 150){ return; }else{ var tmp2 = ccnt.substring(0,xxx); tmp2 += ccnt.substring((yyy+xxx),ccnt.length); findptt(tmp2); } }findptt(firstpara); if(firstpara.length <= taglen + 150){ stp = firstpara.length; } var tmpminus=0; var tmpcon = storycontent.substring(0,stp); if(tmpcon.lastIndexOf(“<“) “)){ }else{ tmpminus = tmpcon.length – tmpcon.lastIndexOf(“

Dowry Harassment (498A) Accused Raped In Lock Up

Here is the link to the story.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/Print.aspx?Id=c19091a0-e8db-4825-9f81-6f66a07ccf6c#

_______________________________