AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The plaintiffs have filed this suit for defamation. The seed of dispute was sown when the defendant no.1 wanted to contest the post of Vice President
at Saturday Club. The plaintiff no.1 was also an aspirant for the said post. The defendant no.1 alleged that the plaintiff no.1 was instrumental in
circulating defamatory and offensive messages against the defendant no.2 and the defendant no.1 through two mobile numbers, which although
apparently did not belong to the plaintiffs but were procured by the plaintiff no.1 and used to malign the defendant no.1.
The defendant no.1 appears to have filed a criminal complaint against the plaintiff no.1. Although the complaint only refers to the name of the plaintiff
no.1 but it records that through the said two mobile numbers various anonymous persons with undisclosed identify have circulated messages in order
to defame and malign the defendant nos. 1 and 2 with the object of defeating the defendant no.1 in the upcoming election as he was one of the
contestants for the said post. An FIR was lodged on 14th July 2017.
According to the plaintiffs, one Prashanta Kumar Das, SI, Anti Fraud Section, DD, on 5th September 2017, made observation that the accused
persons committed offence under Sections 120B/465/469/500/506/507 IPC, which was widely circulated by the defendant no.1 by a letter dated 7th
September 2017. The plaintiffs do not say that they were unaware of the said letter in September 2017. The election was held on 14th September
2017. The defendant no.1 was defeated.
All the correspondences and documents disclosed in this petition are for the period 7th September 2017 and 15th September 2017. There is no
allegation in the plaint that thereafter any defamatory statement has been made by the defendant no.1. The plaintiffs are unaware as to whether any
charge sheet has been filed by the police authorities on the basis of the investigation that might be still in progress. The offensive words made in the
paragraph of the letter dated 7th September, 2017 on which submissions have been made appears to be a reproduction of an observation by the SI,
Anti Fraud Section, DD dated 5th September 2017.
The authenticity of the said report of the SI apparently has not been disputed in this petition. All that is being contended is that the defendant no.1
could not have access to such report as no charge sheet has been filed inasmuch as it is not a certified copy of any document. However, it is too late
in the day to raise such allegation as no contemporaneous challenge was thrown to the communication dated 7th September 2017.
However, since the matter is pending investigation, it is expected that the defendants shall not rely upon any such record unless the investigation
comes to an end and a charge sheet, if at all, filed in the said proceeding. After 15th September 2017, it does not appear that any objectionable or
defamatory statement has been made by the defendant no.1 against the plaintiffs or anyone of them.
Affidavit in opposition shall be filed within three weeks from date; reply thereto, if any, within three weeks thereafter. Matter shall appear under the
heading “Motion Adjourned†eight weeks hence. It is needless to mention that pendency of this proceeding shall not affect the criminal
investigation. Any observation made in this order shall not prejudice the complaints filed by the respective parties against each other.
Mr. Souvik Kundu, Advocate of M/s. Bose and Mitra, appears and waives service of the writ of summons upon the defendants. A copy of the plaint
along with a copy of the writ of summons shall be served upon Mr. Souvik Kundu, Advocate who shall accept the same on behalf of the defendants.
In view thereof, formal service of the writ of summons upon the defendants is dispensed with.