Delhi High Court

Dr. Anil Bansal vs Kalpana Shree Aggarwal & Ors. on 20 March, 2009

Author: S. Muralidhar

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

              CRL.M.C. 1248/2006 & Crl M A 2131/2006

                              Reserved on :      January 29, 2009
                              Date of decision : March 20, 2009

       DR.ANIL BANSAL                     ..... Petitioner
                    Through Mr. Praveen Khattar, Advocate

                     versus

       KALPANA SHREE AGGARWAL & ORS ..... Respondents
                   Through Mr. N. Prabhakar, Advocate
                   for R-1.
                   Mr. S.R. Sharma, proxy counsel for Mr. S.C.
                   Singhal, Advocate for R-4 & 5.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR

      1.  Whether Reporters of local papers may be
          allowed to see the judgment?                       No
       2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?             Yes
       3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes


                       JUDGEMENT

1. The prayer in this petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal

Procedure (Cr.PC) is for quashing of Complaint Case No. 527/1/2004

titled "Kalpana Shree Agarwal v. Dr. Anil Bansal & Others" under

Section 500/384/120B/34 IPC, pending in the court of the learned

Metropolitan Magistrate (MM), New Delhi, and all proceedings

consequent thereto insofar as it concerns the petitioner Dr. Anil

Bansal.

2. The complaint stated that complainant had been married to accused

No.4 Dr. Deepak Agarwal on 22nd May, 1997 and a male child was

born to the couple. Unfortunately, the relationship between the

husband and wife broke down and there was a litigation under Section

406/498A IPC instituted by the complainant against accused No.4 in

FIR No. 50/2004 registered at Police Station Paschim Vihar. It is

further alleged that accused No.4 and his elder brother Rajeev

Agarwal committed an offence under Section 341 IPC for which FIR

No. 497/1995 was registered at Police Station Paschim Vihar. It is

alleged that accused No.2 S. Charanjit Singh, Editor of Rustam-E-

Hind (weekly), in connivance with accused No.1 (petitioner herein)

who is described in the complaint as the Ex-President of the Delhi

Medical Association, connived with the remaining accused, i.e. A.S.

Ahluwalia, Deepak Agarwal and Mrs. Kanta Aggarwal (Mother-in-

law of the complainant) and had published an article in Hindi weekly

newspaper Rustam-E-Hind , Year-8, Edition No.14 on page 5 under

the title "Asamaji Charitraheen Nalki Doctron Savdhan - Anil

Bansal" carrying a photograph of the complainant and making false,

misleading and defamatory statements therein against the

complainant.

3. The said complaint was filed in 2005. Four witnesses, including the

complainant and her mother, were examined at the pre-summoning

stage. On 16.5.2005, the learned MM passed the following order:

"Arguments heard. It has been averred that the complainant is a Dr. by profession and is having reputation in the society and he is having strained relationship with her husband

accused no.4. It has been alleged that there was a publication in the newspaper Rustam e Hind dated 13.3.2004 wherein her chastity was undermined by stating that she is living with one dalal namely Rajesh Raghav and is unsocial, characterless false doctor and the same is stated to have been published by one Dr. Anil Bansal. It has been averred that the accused no.1 to 5 have committed an offence u/s 500/384/120-B/34 IPC and prayed for summoning the accused persons. There are no averments qua section 384 IPC in the complaint. Hence the deposition to that effect in statement cannot be appreciated. It has been deposited by CW3 and CW4 who are the mother of the complainant and complainant respectively that accused no. 4 & 5 have given the published articles in the court in the present of general public and thereby the complainant has been defamed. CW5 have stated that he is President of Delhi Medical Association and have sought the reply on the complaint of the complainant against Dr. Anil Bansal Ex. CW 1/A regarding the published matter and he had sought the comments from Dr. Anil Bansal and the same was not received by them.

I have perused the file. Accused No.2 is stated to be alleged editor of Rustame Hind as stated in para 10. There is nothing against accused No.3 at this stage showing his involvement. Hence, as per the statement of CW 5, when no explanation is given by Dr. Anil Bansal to Delhi Medical Association. It is presumed at this stage that he has got the matter published

without going through the veracity of the same. Undoubtedly, the matter is published one and the newspaper contains defamatory allegations against complainant and accused no.4 & 5 have defamed the complainant by further circulating the same. Accused No.2 is editor. Hence there are sufficient grounds against accused no.1, 2, 4 & 5 u/s 500 IPC and they be summoned accordingly on taking steps 7.11.2005."

4. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that a perusal of

article as a whole would show that the petitioner has nothing to do

with it at all. He was asked perhaps by the crime reporter of the

newspaper concerned about the status of quack doctors practising in

Delhi. The first two paragraphs of the article in fact refer to that

aspect. From the third paragraph onwards, it is clear that the article

thereafter is not based on any statement made by the petitioner but the

crime reporter's own investigation. It is submitted that the petitioner

has no personal knowledge of the complainant at all and merely

because the title of the article contains the name of the petitioner, it

cannot be said that he was responsible for any alleged imputation

made in the article against the complainant.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, questions

the maintainability of the present petition stating that it raises disputed

questions of facts. According to him, the contents of the complaint

do bring out a prima facie case against the petitioner for the offence

under Section 500 IPC. Reliance is placed upon the judgment in

Hamida v. Rashid Alias Rasheed and Others (2008) 1 SCC 474, in

which it is held that at the interlocutory stage, this court should not

interfere. Reference is also made to the decision of the Bombay High

Court in Ashok Mehta v. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2005

CRI.L.J. 3321.

6. The article in question, when translated, reads "Antisocial

Characterless, Quack Doctors Beware: Anil Bansal" and the first two

paragraphs read as under:

"New Delhi: Recently Delhi Medical Association's former President Anil Bansal has taken a tough step against the quack doctors. He wants legal action to be taken against them. He said that there are 20 to 25 thousand quack doctors practicing in Delhi who are making fool of the people of Delhi by indulging in every kind of medical practice. Mainly they are making fool of others by practicing as Sexologists or in Herbal medicines, Naturopathy. He said that he would wipe out the quack doctors from the roots because the quack doctors are harming the people of the country and their only aim is to make money.

Dr. Bansal has given a list of quack doctors who are running their illegal trade in Delhi. We will publish the illegal activities done by some quack doctors in our forthcoming editions. We are making a beginning by publishing from this edition."

7. There is no doubt that following the above two paragraphs, the

article proceeds to discuss the complainant. It ends with the statement

by the said crime reporter that "we are investigating this issue in

detail and after complete investigation, we will publish the further

story in detail. Continued". Clearly, the details pertaining to the

complainant were the product of the so called investigation by the

crime reporter. Therefore, the source of the crime reporter's

information about the complainant is clearly not Dr. Anil Bansal.

Only the first two paragraphs of the article can, if at all, be attributed

to the conversation that took place between the crime reporter and Dr.

Anil Bansal. Dr. Anil Bansal was clearly not responsible for the title

of the article. In fact, even the title does not refer to the complainant