Allowed

Asaduddin Owaisi, v. Ms. Nowhera Shaik

Telangana HC4 Feb 2025CRP/2701/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Defendants sought rejection of a Rs.100 crore defamation damages suit, contending the complaint underlying it was genuine as a charge sheet was filed against the plaintiffs. The High Court held the defamation cause of action was premature while the criminal trial was pending and allowed the revision, rejecting the plaint.

What did the court decide?

Revision allowed; trial Court's order dated 06.07.2023 set aside; plaint in O.S.No.835 of 2017 rejected; no costs.

Asaduddin Owaisi, Vs Ms. Nowhera Shaik — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

I^s385l

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY . TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITI ON NO:2701 0F 2023

¶7

Petition under Article 227 of the constitution of lndia aggrieved by the order dated 06-07-2023 in t.A. No. 3176 ot 2023 in o. s. No. 835 of 2017 on the file of the court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Asaduddin owaisi, s/o. Late. sultan salahuddin owaisi, aoed about 54 vears. occupation. Member of Parriament, R/o. H. No. 3-6-149, Hyd-erguda, nvoerioao.'

¶10

...PETITIONER/DEFENDANT

¶11

ANO

¶12

1 Ms. Nowhera Shaik, D/o.- Shri Nana Saheb, aged about 38years, Occ. llgqaging .D1e9tor,^{Heera Group of Companies, R/6. H. No S-q_tSqtatitiSli,} Sth floor, H.S. Residency, Vali Colony, Golkonda, Hyderabad.

¶13

2 Heera Gold Exim Limited, A Company incorporated under the lndian Qgpn^arye_s^{Act, 1956, Having its Regist,ered office at} rcq-2, etiz itiia, NMDC X Roads, Masab Tank, Hyderabid, Rep. by its Managing'Oirector, Uil Nowhera Shaik, D/o. Shri Nana Saheb.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶16

Petition under Section^',l51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the_affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in o.s. No. 83s of 2012 by the Honbie chief Judge, city Civil Courts, Hyderabad pending disposal of the C.R.p.,

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri. Mohd Asif Amjad

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: Sri K. Sai Krishna Mohan Rao

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

r I I

¶21

HONOURABLE^{SMT ]USTICE K.SU]ANA}

¶22

CIVIL EVISION P^{ETITIONNo.2704} F20 23

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Being aggrieved^{by the orders of learned Chief Judge;City} Civil Court,^{Hyderabaddated 06'07'2023 in IA'No 3776 of 2022} inOs.No.B35of2OlT,whereunder,thelearnedChiefludge dismissed the^{request of the Revision petitioner in rejection of} plaint under Order^{VII, Rule 11(a)of Civil Procedure Code(for} short'C.P.C.')^{r/w 151 of C'P'C', the petitionerhas filed this} revision under^{Article 227 of Constitutionof India'}

¶25

The^{petitioner has filed the above said IA'No'3776 of 2022} under Order^{VII Rule 11 (a) of C'P'C' with a prayer to rejectthe} plaint as there is no^{cause of action for filing the suit' The} petition is filed stating^{that the suit filed seeking relief of} damages for^{Rs.100 Crores. The petitioner herein is the} President of ArNtu^{(All India Majlis IttehadulMuslimeen)and} Barrister as^{well, since inception into politics, won as MLAin the} year 1994 from Chairman^{Constituencyand continuedby} winning the same^{in the year 1994' Thereafter,the petitioner} contested the^{Parliament electionfrom Hyderabad constituency} in the^{year 2004and won the same' Since 2004 onwards'the}

¶26

¶27

¶28

SKS.J C R.P. No.270l^of2023

¶29

petitioner is elected as^{Member of Parliament from Hyderabad} constituency^{representedthe general public and the petitioner} raised various^{important issues for upliftment of weaker sections'} On 01.08.2012,^{the people of Charminarconstituency brought to} the notice of^{the petitionerthat an advertisement is publishedin} SIASAT Newspaper^{on 12-04-2012inviting investorsto investin} the business of^{the respondents' The advertisementwas} suspicious as it^{did not contain any specificaddress' and the} respondents^{are duping people by attracting them with suchtype} of advertisement,^{on which the petitioner brought the same to} the notice of^{the Additional Director Generalof Police' Lawand} Order, by^{giving a writtencomplaintto investigateinto the} matter.Therespondentswerefoundguiltyandthepolice department^{booked the case againstthe respondents vde FIR} No.154 of^{2Ol2 and after enquiry, a charge sheet was filed on} 23-07-2OLg' and^{filing of charge sheet clearly states that the} respondents have^{committedthe offenceand the sameis} pendingbeforetheMetropolitanSessionsJudge'Nampally' Hyderabail. In^{the circumstances, the petition is filed by the} petitioner to reject the^{plaint as barred by limitation and for the} lack of cause of action,^{and the earlier petition filed to reject the} plaint is dismissed stating^{that the limitation involves mixed}

l )

,,'

SKS.J C.R.P. No 2701 of202l

¶35

question of fact of law. Further, in the changed circumstances, since the investigation is completed,^{charge sheetis filed against} the respondents; there is no cause of action^{to entertain the suit.}

¶36

Wherein, the respondents filed counter stating that^the similar application filed by the^petitioner in^{IA.No.768 of 2018} was dismissed on merits. In spite of the^same, the^present petition is filed on the allegation of changed circumstances and that the ground raised by the^petitioner is not valid and^not provided under Order VU Rule 11(a) of C.P.C. As per.the affidavit, the petitioner is seeking rejection of^plaint on the ground of changed circumstances, therefore, maintainability of the suit is questionable. There is specific allegation about the suffering of damage to the image and reputation by respondent No.1 on account of vilification campaign by the^petitioner and his henchmen. The respondents^pleaded that filing of FIR is not disputed, mere-filing of charge sheet by the respondents and prosecution does not entitle the petitioner to seek rejection of plaint. More so, when the matters are sub-judice, the respondents are contesting the criminal cases filed by the petitioner and the judgments of the criminal courts are not binding on the Civil^{Court, hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.}

¶37

¶38

SKS,J C R P. No-2701 of2023

¶39

The trial Court considered the arguments of both^parties stating that the accused is deemed to be^innocent until^proven guilty before the criminal Court and mere filing of charge sheet cannot be taken as a^ground to^presume that the allegatioris made by the^petitioner against the respondents^{are proved to be} true and therefore, the suit filed by the^{respondents is a false} suit, and only when a competent criminal^{court finds respondent} No.1 as guilty of all the allegations against her,^{the petitioner} can claim that the suit is filed on the^{basisof false allegations,as} such, the^petition is dismissed.

¶40

Aggrieved by the same,^{presentpetition is filed by the} petitioner on the grounds that the trial Court ought to^{have seen} the plaint in toto, as the^{respondentherein in Para No.11 of} plaint stated that the final report of the^police which^{was handed} over to respbndent No.1 with a^{request after conducting} thorough investigation in Crime No.154 of^{2012 anddespite} Iapse of almost 5^{years, police} again^{hell bent at the behestof} defendant- to harass, humiliate the complainant and^{her family} unnecessarily. Though a detailed report for the^{closure of the} case in FIR No.154 of 2OL2 was filed and the operative^portionof the said Final Report states as under : 'As^per the above it^is

¶41

¶42

SKS-J C.R-P. No.270t of202l

¶43

disclosed that there is no illegitimacy of business run by the alleged defendant and there is transparency in her deeds and further there is no complaint against from any either her investors or from general public. The complaint received is no-t specific and does not contain any details to show that the alleged defendant ,was committing the offence to defraud the public or investors. There is no evidence in the said complaint to proceed further with investigation. In view of the same, it is closed'. The said para itself is se lf-contrad ictory as the respondents had filed IA.No.2033 of 2022 to amend the plaint, wherein the respondents have categorically admitted that FIR No.154 of 2Ol2 was booked on the complaint of the petitioner herein and after enquiry and investigation, a charge sheet was filed on 23-07 -2019 before the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampally, Hyderabad. Further, the petitioner has relied on a judgment between "Ram Singh Batra Vs, Sharan Premf'l, where in, it is observed that his statement was published, unless it is defamatory per-se, is actionable on proof of that it is false and is defamatory. Further, a complaint to a lawful authority is not actionable unless it is established that a complaint itself as defamatory. He also relied on 'Vijay Gulati Vs. Radhika and

¶44

'Lews 1oru1^zooo 1a1^z+r

¶45

6 SKS.J C.R P No 2701 of2023

¶46

othets'z, wherein, the proposition held by the Court is that.,the power. under Order 7 Rule 1 1 is available to the Court to be exercised Suo Motu and it would take a clear case where. the court is satisfied", and the triar court not considered the same, as there are contrary statements in plaint itself. Once the suit is filed stating that the complaint is closed and later, filed amendment petition showing that charge sheet is Filed in same Crime, it cannot be said that the complaint is a false complaint and only to defame the plaintiff, the complaint is given by the defendant, as such, requested the court to set aside the order of the trial Court by allowing the rejection of the plaint petition.

¶47

Heard Sri Mohd. Asif Amjad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Sai Krishna Mohan Rao, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶48

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that when the allegations are not proved as false, he cannot file a defamation suit against the complainant, whereas, the suit is filed on ttre false averments stating that complaint is closed, it itself shows that malaflde intention of the respondent No.1/plaintiff to harass the petitioner/defendant and the triar

¶49

'Llws 1olu1 zoro 1ro1 zas

¶50

¶51

SKS,J C.R.P. No.270l of202l

¶52

Court not considered the same, as such, requested the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court by rejecting the suit.

¶53

B. On tne other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that though charge sheet is filed, it is still pending. She is presuming to be innocent till the trial is concluded and no victim gave complaint against respondent No.2/plaintiff in any way and only to defame her, this petitioner filed a false complaint and he is on bail granted by the Hon,ble Supreme Court. Therefore, there is no genuineness in the complaint filed by the defendant, as such, on that basis plaint cannot be rejected. Further also submitted that there cannot be any second rejection of the plaint in the suit and the first petition is dismissed stating that the limitation is mixed question of law and facts, to be decided in the main suit. In view of the changed circumstances basing on the process of law, requested the Court to dismiss the petition.

¶54

In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the respondents/plaintiffs initially filed the suit i.e., O.S.No.B35 of 2Ot7 claiming damages against the petitioner/defendant. The respondents areged that the compraint

¶55

¶56

SKS,J C.R.P.^{No.2?0t of2023}

¶57

of the^{petitioneragainst her was false , malicious, and resulted in} her dgfamation,^{causingsignificantharm to her .reputationin} society.^{However, the petitionerhas submitted that the} complaint^{was not false' as evidenced by the subsequentfilihg of} a charge^{sheet in the FIR andthe PendencY of criminal} proceedings^{against the respondents'This submissionraises} significant^{doubts aboutthe claimof the respondentsof a false} complaint'^{This Court notes that the cause of action of the} respondents^{is premisedon the assumptionthat the complaint of} the^{petitionerwas false and motivatedby malice' However' the} pendency^{of criminal proceedingsagainstthe respondents} suggests^{that the complaint may havebeen genuine and based} on credible^information'

¶58

¶59

In^{light of these circumstances' this Court finds that the} craim of^{the respondentsof a farse compraintis premature.The} reputation^{of the respondentsand characterare undoubtedly} important,^{but they must be balanced againstthe needto ensure} that^{genuine complaints are not stifled' Furthermore' allowing} the suit^{of the respondentsto proceed at this stage could} potentially^{interferewith the pendingcriminalproceedings'It is} essential^{to ensure that the criminaljustice process is allowed to}

¶60

¶61

SKSJ C.R.P. No.270l of2023

¶62

¶63

unfold without undue influence or interference From civil proceedings.

¶64

In view of the above, this Court holds that the cause of action oF the respondents is not yet ripe for adjudication. Th-e respondents may file a suit after the conclusion of the trial in the criminal case, should she be acquitted of all charges. At that stage, the respondents can seek appropriate remedies for any alleged harm to her reputation. Accordingly, this Court allows the C.R.P. by rejecting the plaint, as the cause of action of the respondents is not yet ripe for adjudication.

¶65

Accordingry, this Civir Revision petition is ailowed setting aside the order dated 06.07.2023 passed in IA.No.3776 of 2022 in OS.No.835 of 2Ot7 by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶66

Consequently, Miscellaneous applications pending if any,

¶67

are closed.

¶68

SD/. T TIRUMALA DEVI
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
<br>SECTION OFFICER
1
v

¶69

//TRUE COPY//

¶70

To,

¶71

1 The Chief Judge City Civil Court, Hyderabad 2. One CC to Sri. Mohd Asif Amjad, Advocate tOpUCt 3. One CC to Sri K Sai Krishna Mohan Rao, Advocate tOpUCj 4. Two CD Copies

DL YY

I l:LA
</
7
'1::) s O i
HIGH COURT $ trt I
€
\Y sCO
DAf ED:0410212025
.o^
'._=

¶76

ORDER

¶77

CRP.No.2701 ol 2023

¶78

ALLOWING THE C.R.P