The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the applicant's revision petition challenging the discharge of the respondent in a defamation case. The court found the applicant's evidence insufficient, describing allegations as bald and unsupported by admissible facts.
The revision petition was dismissed upholding the discharge of the respondent.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRR No. 395 of 2017
G. R. Ramesh Kumar S/o Late Radha Krishna, Aged About 75 Years R/o Plot No. 75, Street No. 4, Sundar Nagar, West Kohka, Bhilai, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh.
---- Applicant
Versus
Ajit Kumar G. S/o Late Shri G.S. Guruswami, Aged About 48 Years R/o New India Insurance Company Limited, 87, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Fort Mumbai (Maharashtra), Presently R/o At The New India Assurance Co. Ltd, Hubli Regional Office (680000)2nd Floor, Srinath Complex, New Cotton Market, Hubli 580029
---- Respondent
For applicant – Shri Tarendra Kumar Jha, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri
Order
18/08/2017
2
respondent. Therefore, this instant revision.
3
news paper, TV channel etc. Subsequently, it is stated that on a case registered on behalf of the Mausami Rai under section 345, 294 and 341 of IPC applicant was acquitted. It is further alleged that on the different occasion he was humiliated in the office and he was not allowed to work and channel gate of the office were closed. Thereby it was alleged that in the report which was made by Mausami Rai respondent had also conspired. The perusal of record would show except for such bald and omnibus statement nothing has been stated how defamation has been caused. It is also not been made clear by the applicant who was author for such defamation and facts are not clear and no evidence is existing. Statement of Rajendra Das Vaishnav one of the witness examined on behalf of the complainant also falls in same line and omnibus allegations have been made. It is stated by the witnesses that since respondent was holding animosity against the applicant as such he was inculpated in false case through another lady. Perusal of the statement reading it with the finding given by the learned court below I do not find any iota of evidence, only bald and omnibus opinion has been made, such opinion cannot be accepted as evidence. No facts are availabe and only hear say facts have been stated against the applicant which are not admissible in the evidence.
Sd/-
(Goutam Bhaduri)
JUDGE
gouri
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the discharge of the respondent from the criminal case under Sections 500 and 120-B of IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge can be set aside in favour of the applicant.
Whether the applicant has established defamation caused by false allegations in a criminal complaint filed against him.
Whether the applicant's allegations are supported by admissible evidence beyond bald and omnibus statements.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
G. R. Ramesh Kumar
Ajit Kumar G.
Goutam Bhaduri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
