Telangana High Court
Asaduddin Owaisi, vs Ms. Nowhera Shaik, on 4 February, 2025
HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K.SUJANA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2701 OF 2023
ORDER :
Being aggrieved by the orders of learned Chief Judge, City
Civil Court, Hyderabad dated 06.07.2023 in IA.No.3776 of 2022
in OS.No.835 of 2017, where under, the learned Chief Judge
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 petitioner has filed this
revision under Article 227 of Constitution of India.
2. 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 reject the
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 AIMIM (All India Majlis Ittehadul Muslimeen) and
Barrister as well, since inception into politics, won as MLA in the
year 1994 from Chairman Constituency and continued by
winning the same in the year 1994. Thereafter, the petitioner
contested the Parliament election from Hyderabad constituency
in the year 2004 and won the same. Since 2004 onwards, the
2 SKS,J
petitioner is elected as Member of Parliament from Hyderabad
constituency represented the general public and the petitioner
raised various important issues for upliftment of weaker sections.
On 01.08.2012, the people of Charminar constituency brought to
the notice of the petitioner that an advertisement is published in
SIASAT Newspaper on 12-04-2012 inviting investors to invest in
the business of the respondents. The advertisement was
suspicious as it did not contain any specific address, and the
respondents are duping people by attracting them with such type
of advertisement, on which the petitioner brought the same to
the notice of the Additional Director General of Police, Law and
Order, by giving a written complaint to investigate into the
matter. The respondents were found guilty and the police
department booked the case against the respondents vide FIR
No.154 of 2012 and after enquiry, a charge sheet was filed on
23-07-2019 and filing of charge sheet clearly states that the
respondents have committed the offence and the same is
pending before the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampally,
Hyderabad. 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
3 SKS,J
question of fact of law. Further, in the changed circumstances,
since the investigation is completed, charge sheet is filed against
the respondents; there is no cause of action to entertain the suit.
3. 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 VII 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.
4 SKS,J
4. 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 allegations
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 basis of false allegations, as
such, the petition is dismissed.
5. Aggrieved by the same, present petition is filed by the
petitioner on the grounds that the trial Court ought to have seen
the plaint in toto, as the respondent herein in Para No.11 of
plaint stated that the final report of the police which was handed
over to respondent No.1 with a request after conducting
thorough investigation in Crime No.154 of 2012 and despite
lapse of almost 5 years, police again hell bent at the behest of
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 2012 was filed and the operative portion of
the said Final Report states as under : 'As per the above it is
5 SKS,J
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 not
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 self-contradictory 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 2012
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 Premi" 1, 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
LAWS (DLH) 2006 (8) 241
6 SKS,J
others' 2, wherein, the proposition held by the Court is that "the
power under Order 7 Rule 11 is available to the Court to be
exercised Suo Motu and it would take a clear case where the
court is satisfied", and the trial 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.
6. Heard Sri Mohd. Asif Amjad, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri K.Sai Krishna Mohan Rao, learned counsel for
the respondents.
7. 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 the false averments stating that complaint is closed, it
itself shows that malafide intention of the respondent
No.1/plaintiff to harass the petitioner/defendant and the trial
LAWS (DLH) 2010 (10) 249
7 SKS,J
Court not considered the same, as such, requested the Court to
set aside the order of the trial Court by rejecting the suit.
8. On the 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.
9. 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.835 of 2017 claiming damages against the
petitioner/defendant. The respondents alleged that the complaint
8 SKS,J
of the petitioner against her was false, malicious, and resulted in
her defamation, causing significant harm to her reputation in
society. However, the petitioner has submitted that the
complaint was not false, as evidenced by the subsequent filing of
a charge sheet in the FIR and the pendency of criminal
proceedings against the respondents. This submission raises
significant doubts about the claim of the respondents of a false
complaint. This Court notes that the cause of action of the
respondents is premised on the assumption that the complaint of
the petitioner was false and motivated by malice. However, the
pendency of criminal proceedings against the respondents
suggests that the complaint may have been genuine and based
on credible information.
10. In light of these circumstances, this Court finds that the
claim of the respondents of a false complaint is premature. The
reputation of the respondents and character are undoubtedly
important, but they must be balanced against the need to ensure
that genuine complaints are not stifled. Furthermore, allowing
the suit of the respondents to proceed at this stage could
potentially interfere with the pending criminal proceedings. It is
essential to ensure that the criminal justice process is allowed to
9 SKS,J
unfold without undue influence or interference from civil
proceedings.
11. In view of the above, this Court holds that the cause of
action of the respondents is not yet ripe for adjudication. The
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.
12. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting
aside the order dated 06.07.2023 passed in IA.No.3776 of 2022
in OS.No.835 of 2017 by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil
Court, Hyderabad. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, Miscellaneous applications pending if any,
are closed.
__________
K.SUJANA, J
Date: 04.02.2025
PLV
