S.R.Jangid Ips, v. V.Vidya
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION) WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE A.No.3340 of 2021 in C.S.No.105 of 2018 S.R.Jangid IPS Additional Director General of Police Economic Offences Wing, 2/262, Ganga Street, 4th Main Road, River View Enclave Manapakkam, Chennai 600 125.
:Plaintiff Vs.
V.Vidya D/o. N.Krishnasamy No.11, Thangavel Street, Gokulam Apartments, T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017.
:Defendant Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to receive the documents morefully described hereunder as Additional documents on the side of the Applicant/ Plaintiff in the above suit in C.S.No.105 of 2018.
This Application coming on this day before this court for hearing the court made the following order:
The applicant herein is the former Director General of Police who has laid the suit for defamation seeking damages of Rs.1,00,00,000/-.
2. In the affidavit filed in support of this application, the applicant has averred : ●That he had obtained an order of ad-interim injunction in O.A.No.143 of 2018 dated 07.03.2018, restraining the defendant from making false and frivolous allegations against him affecting his reputation. However, the defendant herein has challenged the said order of interim injunction in O.S.A.No.198 of 2018, and this came to be dismissed by the Division Bench with cost of Rs.25,000/-. ●The defendant/respondent however continued to engage in activities with an intent to malign the reputation of the plaintiff. It is in this circumstances, the plaintiff has filed an application for producing some proceedings to substantiate the contentions raised therein. These documents were ordered to be received by the Court.
●Be that as it may, the defendant in the suit had filed five writ petitions in WP.Nos.10524/2017, 19586/2017, 13252/2017, 21268/2017 and 25268 of 2017, against the plaintiff with a view to interfere with certain aspects of plaintiff's service as a police officer. She has also filed Crl.OP.No.84/2018 to hold an enquiry into the conduct of the plaintiff. All these applications came to be dismissed by two different Judges of this Court. ●During the tenure of the plaintiff, at least six criminal cases came to be registered against the defendant, which includes certain multi-crore fraud of HUDCO Bank. The last mentioned case is pending in C.C.No.35/2015 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Madhavaram. In all these cases, she has successively filed Crl.OPs suppressing the earlier one filed for quashing the case, and in some of the petitions, the plaintiff's name has been brought in without he being made as a party to the proceedings.
3. The case is posted for trial. The plaintiff/applicant now seeks the leave of the Court to produce as many as eight documents. They are all orders passed by this
Court in various proceedings, and they all have been passed by this Court after the suit was laid.
4. The defendant/party-in-person has filed her counter affidavit. In her counter affidavit, the defendant/respondent has inter alia contended that the applicant/plaintiff has not explained how the documents he now produces are relevant to his cause. She also alleges that the applicant has forwarded a copy of the order in Crl.OP.No.2224/2017, which is one of the documents he now seeks to produce before the Court, to the then Director General of Police, Superintendent of Police, CBCID Special Unit, enumerating the criminal cases pending against her. There are a whole lot of other allegations which are not in relevant for present purpose.
5. The suit is one for defamation and the plaintiff now seeks to produce certain documents all of which are copies of the orders passed by this Court either in the writ petitions or in Crl.OPs, or in O.S.A. etc., The counter can be separated in two parts, one that touches upon the relevancy of these documents in a suit for defamation, and the rest are allegations directed personally against the plaintiff. This Court is least interested in the latter part for the present. So far as the first part is concerned, the
relevancy of the documents, its admissibility etc., can be decided even post trial, during final hearing of the suit.
6. In the result, the application is allowed and the documents are allowed to be produced in evidence subject to proof, relevancy and admissibility. The respondent/defendant is free to raise such of her objections at the time of marking the documents, and the learned Master is required to record the nature of the objection so taken. The merit of such objection will be considered at the time of final disposal of the suit.
Sd./-NSSJ.
22/12/2021 //Certified to be true copy// Dated at Madras this the day of 2022. COURT OFFICER(O.S.) From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.
EVK 19/01/2022