Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order VII Rule 11(a) — Rejection of plaint — Cause of action — Defamation suit — Prematurity
Suit for damages alleging defamation based on complaint lodged by defendant before lawful authorities — Criminal case registered and charge-sheet filed — Criminal proceedings pending — Held, cause of action for defamation premised on allegation of “false complaint” not ripe — Until criminal court records finding that complaint was false or malicious, civil claim premature — Plaint liable to be rejected.
[Paras 9–11]
Defamation — Complaint to lawful authority — Actionability
Complaint made to police or competent authority is not per se defamatory — Such complaint becomes actionable only if proved to be false and malicious — Mere filing of charge-sheet negates plea that complaint was demonstrably false at threshold.
[Paras 4, 9–10]
Criminal proceedings — Effect on civil defamation suit
Where criminal prosecution arising out of complaint is pending trial — Civil court ought not to presume falsity or malice of complaint — Entertaining defamation suit at that stage may interfere with criminal justice process — Proper course is to await outcome of criminal trial.
[Paras 9–11]
Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC — Scope — Subsequent developments
Court can examine plaint along with admitted subsequent developments showing absence of cause of action — Pendency of criminal proceedings and filing of charge-sheet constitute relevant facts to determine ripeness of cause of action.
[Paras 2, 9–11]
Article 227, Constitution of India — Supervisory jurisdiction
High Court justified in exercising supervisory jurisdiction where trial court failed to consider that cause of action was premature and suit was barred at threshold — Order refusing rejection of plaint set aside.
[Paras 11–12]
ANALYSIS OF LAW AND FACTS
1. Nature of Proceedings
The Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenged the order dated 06-07-2023 passed by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dismissing an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC seeking rejection of the plaint in O.S. No. 835 of 2017.
[Paras 1–2]
2. Suit and Claim
The respondents/plaintiffs instituted the suit claiming ₹100 crores as damages alleging that the petitioner/defendant lodged a false and malicious complaint, resulting in defamation and injury to reputation.
[Paras 2, 9]
3. Defence and Application under Order VII Rule 11
The petitioner contended that:
the complaint was not false,
FIR No.154 of 2012 was registered,
after investigation, charge-sheet was filed on 23-07-2019, and
criminal proceedings were pending before the Sessions Court.
On this basis, rejection of plaint was sought for lack of cause of action.
[Paras 2, 4–5]
4. Trial Court’s View
The trial court dismissed the application holding that:
accused is presumed innocent till proved guilty, and
mere filing of charge-sheet cannot conclude falsity or truth of allegations,
thereby allowing the suit to proceed.
[Para 4]
5. High Court’s Examination of Cause of Action
The High Court closely examined the plaint and noted that:
the entire cause of action rested on the assertion that the complaint lodged by the petitioner was false and malicious,
however, criminal proceedings were still pending, and
filing of charge-sheet indicated that the complaint was not demonstrably false at that stage.
[Paras 9–10]
6. Prematurity of Defamation Claim
The Court held that:
a defamation suit based on “false complaint” presupposes a finding that the complaint was indeed false,
such finding can arise only after conclusion of criminal trial, and
allowing civil suit to proceed earlier would amount to pre-judging issues pending before criminal court.
[Paras 10–11]
7. Balancing Civil and Criminal Proceedings
The Court emphasised that:
reputation is important, but
genuine complaints to lawful authorities must not be chilled, and
civil proceedings should not impede or influence criminal adjudication.
[Paras 9–11]
8. Error of the Trial Court
The High Court found that the trial court failed to consider:
the effect of the pending criminal case, and
the absence of a ripe cause of action for defamation.
This amounted to a jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 227.
[Paras 11–12]
9. Final Holding
The Civil Revision Petition was allowed.
The impugned order dated 06-07-2023 was set aside.
The plaint in O.S. No. 835 of 2017 was rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC.
No order as to costs.
[Paras 11–12]
Ratio Decidendi
A defamation suit founded on the allegation that a criminal complaint was false and malicious is premature so long as criminal proceedings arising from that complaint are pending. Until a competent criminal court determines falsity or malice, no ripe cause of action arises, and the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC.
No comments:
Post a Comment