{"id":17983,"date":"2011-10-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-10-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vineet-jain-vs-nct-of-delhi-ors-on-10-october-2011"},"modified":"2018-09-16T11:18:30","modified_gmt":"2018-09-16T05:48:30","slug":"vineet-jain-vs-nct-of-delhi-ors-on-10-october-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vineet-jain-vs-nct-of-delhi-ors-on-10-october-2011","title":{"rendered":"Vineet Jain vs Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 10 October, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Vineet Jain vs Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 10 October, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog<\/div>\n
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n\n%             Judgment Reserved On: 30th September, 2011\n              Judgment Delivered On: 10th October, 2011\n+                            CRL.M.C.2111\/2007\n\n       VINEET JAIN                                 ..... Petitioner\n                 Through:           Mr.Manish Shukla and\n                                    Mr.Yoginder Handoo, Advocates\n\n                                    versus\n\n       NCT OF DELHI & ORS.                ..... Respondents\n                Through: Mr.H.R.Khan Suhel, Advocate\n                           with Mr.Archit Upadhayay and\n                           Mr.Ankit Mishra, Advocates for R-\n                           2\n                           SI Sanjay, ARC\/Crime Branch\n\n                             CRL.M.C.2704\/2007\n\n       ARINDAM SEN GUPTA & ANR.         ..... Petitioners\n                Through: Mr.R.K.Handoo, Mr.Yoginder\n                         Handu, and Mr.Manish Shukla\n                         Advocates\n\n                                    versus\n\n       NCT OF DELHI & ORS.                ..... Respondents\n                Through: Mr.H.R.Khan Suhel, Advocate\n                           with Mr.Archit Upadhayay and\n                           Mr.Ankit Mishra, Advocates for R-\n                           2\n                           SI Sanjay, ARC\/Crime Branch\n\n                             CRL.M.C.2863\/2007\n\n       RAMESH CHANDER AGARWAL         ..... Petitioner\n               Through: Mr.R.K.Handoo, Mr.Yoginder\n                        Handu, Mr.Pramod Kumar\n                        Dubey, Mr.Kunal Sood,\nCrl.M.C.No.2111\/07 & conn.matters                          Page 1 of 27\n                                     Mr.Himanshu Gupta and\n                                    Mr.Manish Shukla Advocates\n\n                                    versus\n\n       STATE & ANR.                                ..... Respondents\n                Through:            Mr.H.R.Khan Suhel, Advocate\n                                    with Mr.Archit Upadhayay and\n                                    Mr.Ankit Mishra, Advocates for R-\n                                    2\n                                    SI Sanjay, ARC\/Crime Branch\n\n                             CRL.M.C.3082\/2007\n\n       DURBAR GANGULY                            ..... Petitioner\n               Through:             Mr.Subash Gulati, Mr.Ravi Nayak\n                                    and Mr.Samarjit Pattnaik,\n                                    Advocates\n\n                                    versus\n\n       NCT OF DELHI & ANR.                ..... Respondents\n                Through: Mr.H.R.Khan Suhel, Advocate\n                           with Mr.Archit Upadhayay and\n                           Mr.Ankit Mishra, Advocates for R-\n                           2\n                           SI Sanjay, ARC\/Crime Branch\n\n                             CRL.M.C.3083\/2007\n\n       CHANDAN MITRA                             ..... Petitioner\n               Through:             Mr.Subash Gulati, Mr.Ravi Nayak\n                                    and Mr.Samarjit Pattnaik,\n                                    Advocates\n\n                                    versus\n\n       NCT OF DELHI & ANR.                ..... Respondents\n                Through: Mr.H.R.Khan Suhel, Advocate\n                           with Mr.Archit Upadhayay and\n                           Mr.Ankit Mishra, Advocates for R-\n                           2\n                           SI Sanjay, ARC\/Crime Branch\nCrl.M.C.No.2111\/07 & conn.matters                          Page 2 of 27\n                              CRL.M.C.182\/2008\n\n       MAHINDER MOHAN GUPTA              ..... Petitioner\n               Through: Mr.Jagmohan Sharma, Advocate\n\n                                    versus\n\n       NCT OF DELHI & ANR.                ..... Respondents\n                Through: Mr.H.R.Khan Suhel, Advocate\n                           with Mr.Archit Upadhayay and\n                           Mr.Ankit Mishra, Advocates for R-\n                           2\n                           SI Sanjay, ARC\/Crime Branch\n\n                             CRL.M.C.1052\/2008\n\n       JAGRAN PRAKASHAN LTD. & ORS.   ..... Petitioners\n                Through: Mr.Jagmohan Sharma, Advocate\n\n                                    versus\n\n       NCT OF DELHI & ANR.                ..... Respondents\n                Through: Mr.H.R.Khan Suhel, Advocate\n                           with Mr.Archit Upadhayay and\n                           Mr.Ankit Mishra, Advocates for R-\n                           2\n                           SI Sanjay, ARC\/Crime Branch\n\n                             CRL.M.C.1224\/2008\n\n       MANOJ CG                                   ..... Petitioner\n                      Through:      Mr.Jainendra Maldahiyar,\n                                    Advocate for Mr.Anurag Ranjan,\n                                    Advocate\n\n                                    versus\n\n       NCT OF DELHI & ANR.                ..... Respondents\n                Through: Mr.H.R.Khan Suhel, Advocate\n                           with Mr.Archit Upadhayay and\n                           Mr.Ankit Mishra, Advocates for R-\n                           2\nCrl.M.C.No.2111\/07 & conn.matters                         Page 3 of 27\n                                     SI Sanjay, ARC\/Crime Branch\n\n\n        CORAM:\n        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG\n\n     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed\n        to see the judgment?\n\n     2. To be referred to Reporter or not?\n\n     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the\n        Digest?\n\nPRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.\n<\/pre>\n
1.      Backdrop facts giving rise to the present petitions are
\nthat on 03.06.2006 the Crime Branch of Delhi Police raided
\nRajdoot Hotel on Mathura Road and arrested 13 girls
\nallegedly performing obscene dance in the hotel.\n<\/p>\n
2.      FIR No.391 dated 4.6.2006 for offences punishable
\nunder Section 294\/109\/34 IPC read with Section 8 of
\nImmoral Trafficking Act was registered at PS Nizamuddin on
\nthe statement of Sh.Rajeev Kumar Choudhary, a decoy sent,
\nEnglish Translation of which reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
        “It is stated that I have been residing at the
\n        above-said address and I am a Horticulture
\n        Contractor by profession. Today I came towards
\n        Jangpura for some work. At about 10.40 pm you
\n        met me on the Mathura Road towards Bhogal
\n        side opposite Rajdoot Hotel. You told me that
\n        the Hotel Management of Eldarado Bar of
\n        Rajdoot Hotel illegally performing the dances
\n        with obscene actions. You have further told me
\n        that the Dancing Girls with their indecent acts
\n        exciting for sex activities and that they grab
\n        customers for illegal work.    You have asked
\n        about this from 7-8 other persons for their
\nCrl.M.C.No.2111\/07 & conn.matters                         Page 4 of 27<\/span>
\n        participation in the Raiding Party but except Dilip
\n       Kumar, S\/o Shri Shyam Sunder, Employee of G-
\n       Star Hotel 22\/7, Old Rajinder Nagar, no one
\n       agreed to join and had left after giving excuses
\n       without disclosing their names and addresses. I,
\n       Dilip Kumar agreed taking it as social
\n       responsibility.    You handed over to me 4
\n       currency Notes of denomination of `500\/= each
\n       bearing Nos. (1) 1-5 AA 67434, (2) 2-5 AJ
\n       663436, (3) 3-2 AA 797785, (4) 4-7 AA 334165.
\n       After taking my search and after taking signature
\n       on the Memo. You have given us instructions
\n       and advised us to buy the Entrance Ticket of
\n       `500 each for entering into Eldorado Restaurant,
\n       Rajdoot Hotel and advised us to witness the
\n       show. In case the girls do any obscene activity
\n       then Dilip Kumar shall come out of the Main Gate
\n       where Darban stands through the Reception and
\n       shall give the signal by keeping both his hands
\n       on his head. On this advice, we both went to
\n       Rajdoot Hotel around 11 PM. There I purchased
\n       two Tickets of `500\/- each from the Counter near
\n       the Reception from the Hotel Staff bearing Ticket
\n       No.23609 and 23610. We entered into the Bar
\n       and we saw that on the stage in the corner four
\n       girls at a time wearing colourful and half nude
\n       dresses are dancing and near the stage the
\n       owner of the Hotel who has a French beard,
\n       whose name we came to know as Babbu Kalra.
\n       He was telling the girls dancing on the stage to
\n       show more obscene gestures and dance. On this
\n       the girls were showing their cleavage and thighs
\n       and also made gestures by hand towards their
\n       private body parts. On seeing this I started
\n       getting thoughts about sex. On this the entire
\n       atmosphere became dirty and I also got excited
\n       and I started feeling bad. But these girls carried
\n       on with their dance of obscene gestures. And
\n       like this two other girls came on the dance stage
\n       turn by turn and made same obscene gestures to
\n       excite for sex by showing such obscene gestures
\n       and after seeking this we felt really bad. They
\n       crossed all the moral limits.
\nCrl.M.C.No.2111\/07 & conn.matters                     Page 5 of 27<\/span><\/p>\n
        On seeing this we were not able to tolerate and
\n       as per the instructions given by you, Dilip Kumar
\n       at about 11.30 AM went out to give signal to the
\n       Raiding Party. In the meanwhile this obscene
\n       dance was going on.         All these Girls were
\n       performing these actions on the instigation of the
\n       owner of the Hotel Babbu Kalra. During this
\n       time, you along with Police party came inside the
\n       Hall and took under control the 13 girls with the
\n       help of the Ladies Police whose names are
\n       disclosed as under:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1.     Pooja w\/o Sumit Mahajan, R\/o 52\/16, Ground
\n       Floor, CR Park, New Delhi age 24 years.\n<\/p>\n
2.     Kiran D\/o Chotelal Gupta, R\/o Asira Bazar, Tehsil
\n       Hasia, Zila Allahabad (UP) age 19 years.\n<\/p>\n
3.     Maya D\/o Suresh Kumar R\/o Room No.117,
\n       Rajdoot Hotel, New Delhi\n<\/p>\n
4.     Isha D\/o Kabir R\/o 40\/50, 2nd Floor, CR Park, New
\n       Delhi\n<\/p>\n
5.     Karishma W\/o Kapil Dev gilani, R\/o I 3\/68, Sector
\n       16, Rohini\n<\/p>\n
6.     Nancy D\/o Islam R\/o Hall Address, Room No.166,
\n       Hotel Rajdoot, New Delhi\n<\/p>\n
7.     Rekha W\/o Robin R\/o 797, Sector 19, Pocket-3,
\n       Dwarka, New Delhi\n<\/p>\n
8.     Lily Dass D\/o Pooran Kumar Dass R\/o SF-16,
\n       Block-D, Kohey Fiza Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh\n<\/p>\n
9.     Kareena D\/o Kishan La, R\/o F-40, Jawahar Bagh,
\n       Shakarpur, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi\n<\/p>\n
10.    Tabassum D\/o Siddharth Bhardwaj R\/o 200, Lodhi
\n       Road Complex, New Delhi.\n<\/p>\n
11.    Anjali D\/o Surender Yadav R\/o A-703, Seventh
\n       Floor, Kanchanjunga Apartment Dwarka, New
\n       Delhi\n<\/p>\n
12.    Maya Singh W\/o Rajender Singh R\/o I-Block,
\n       Saurabh Vihar, Jaitpur, Badarpur, New Delhi.\n<\/p>\n
13.    Reenu Saxena, W\/o Sarab Saxena, R\/o 727,
\n       Sector 19, Pocket 111 Dwarka, New Delhi.
\n       These girls with their gestures and talks were
\n       instigating the customers for the wrong deeds
\n       and the customers were getting instigated to
\n       involve in wrong deeds. Apart from us, Shri
\nCrl.M.C.No.2111\/07 & conn.matters                    Page 6 of 27<\/span>
\n        Ramesh Bahl, S\/o Shri Amar Nath, R\/o 1692 Arya
\n       Samaj Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi and Shri Anil
\n       Kumar S\/o Preetam Kumar R\/o C-34, Shakti
\n       Nagar, Delhi had also come to see the dance and
\n       they were also shocked and angry to see the
\n       show with about 50 to 60 audience who were
\n       also watching the show.        Out of all these
\n       audience, most of them were also instigated with
\n       the same vulgar feelings as we were. In this
\n       regard, police investigation shall be carried out
\n       against Shri Babbu Kalra whose full name is Man
\n       Mohan Kalra S\/o Shri Kishan Lal Kalra and I have
\n       handed over the two tickets whose numbers I
\n       have already given you along with the two `500
\n       denomination notes. Statement heard and it is
\n       correct.”\n<\/p>\n
3.     An     endorsement           was   made   beneath   the
\nstatement which reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
      “ACP had the information of Rajdoot Hotel that
\n      the owner Babbu Kalra and Prem Kalra are
\n      running a dance Bar in the Hotel where they
\n      serve drinks and girls from different cities of
\n      India perform obscene dances. Where these girls
\n      with their obscene gestures instigate the
\n      customers. This information was brought to the
\n      knowledge and secretly it was investigated and it
\n      was found to be correct. We the Raiding Team
\n      alongwith ACP, Inspector Jeet Singh Special
\n      Team, Inspector Raj Vir Singh, AATS\/Crime
\n      Branch and Staff SI Raj Kumar, SI Bhagwati
\n      Prasad, SI Buddh Parkash, ASI Ravinder Const.
\n      Sanjay Kain. Special Team SI Pankaj Yadav, SI
\n      Sehdev Rana, HC Bheem Singh, HC Tanveer,
\n      AATS Staff, SI Surinder Rana, ASI Sameer Singh,
\n      Const. Pardeep Hudda, Const.Sat Pal, Lady SI
\n      Pushap Yadav and Lady Const.Kavita, 48, Crime
\n      Branch, Lady Const.Mukesh No.303 DRP, Lady
\n      Const.Anita No.2947\/Crime.      This team had
\n      already been called and instructed to develop on
\nCrl.M.C.No.2111\/07 & conn.matters                          Page 7 of 27<\/span>
\n        the information and the Police Station of the area
\n       Jangpura Mathura Road was informed about it
\n       and the team was present there. The secret
\n       informer informed that at this time also there are
\n       obscene dances\/Cabra is going on in the Hotel
\n       Rajdoot. On this information one Raiding Party
\n       alongwith a Staff and Rajiv Kumar Chaudhary
\n       along with Dilip Kumamr was prepared and the
\n       instructions were given to both the witnesses
\n       and were also handed over two notes of
\n       denomination of `500\/- each and were instructed
\n       to go into the Rajdoot Hotel and watch the dance
\n       and were further instructed that if any obscene
\n       activities are taking place then witness Dilip
\n       Kumar would come out and would make the
\n       instructed indication. Thereafter, all of us also
\n       took position around Rajdoot Hotel. At about
\n       11.30 PM, on the indication given by the Witness
\n       Dilip Kumar the whole Raiding Party went into
\n       Bar Hall of the Rajdoot Hotel i.e. Eldorado
\n       Restaurant where 13 girls who were dancing turn
\n       by turn on the stage and were making obscene
\n       gestures to instigate the people sitting in the Bar
\n       Room and Babbu Kalra who was also instigating
\n       them to perform such obscene gestures were
\n       taken under custody. The complainant Rajeev
\n       Kumar Chaudhary S\/o Ram Veer Singh recorded
\n       his statement and case u\/s 294\/109\/34 IPC and
\n       u\/s 8 of ITP Act was registered. That Case may
\n       be registered.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
4.     The police released a press release, which reads as
\nunder:-\n<\/p>\n
       “With the arrest of 13 bar girls caught while
\n       performing obscene, sex provocative, semi-nude
\n       floor dancing shows at Rajdoot Hotel, Mathura
\n       Road, last night, sleuths of crime branch Delhi
\n       Police have been able to smash a well organized,
\n       scandalous racket being run by the owners of the
\n       said hotel where the dance bar girls from Bombay
\n       dance openly enticed\/allure the visiting guests for
\nCrl.M.C.No.2111\/07 & conn.matters                     Page 8 of 27<\/span>
\n        sexual acts while dressed in alluring and scanty
\n       dresses. One of the partners of said hotel namely
\n       Manmohan @ Babbu Kalra has also been arrested
\n       for abetting, aiding these dance bar girls to
\n       achieve their illegal designs.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       An information was received at crime branch that
\n       the owners of Rajdoot Hotel are flourishing there
\n       business by organizing floor dance shows where
\n       dance girls allure customers through obscene
\n       gestures, words, actions, wilfully exposing their
\n       person      to    attract    the     attention    of
\n       spectators\/guests for the purpose of prostitution.
\n       For this purpose the hoteliers facilitates them by
\n       providing accommodation at their hotel for
\n       carrying out their illegal, nefarious and antisocial
\n       activities in the garb of floor dance playing sexy
\n       songs\/tunes. The hotel management charge each
\n       guest `500.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       This information was developed by the officers of
\n       Anti Robbery Cell crime branch, specifically
\n       entrusted with this task. On verification through
\n       secret sources the information was found to be
\n       authentic. The hotel owners used extra ordinary
\n       vigilant system using Hi-tech security\/monitoring
\n       gadgets installed at the various locations of hotel
\n       to ward off any checks on their anti social
\n       activities.   They have hired a number of
\n       musclemen, bouncers, extra guards to inform
\n       them.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       A raid was organized on a specific tip off at the
\n       premises of hotel Eldrado dance bar, under the
\n       supervision of A.C.P. P.P. Singh comprising the
\n       selected staff of crime branch, after the decoy
\n       gave the predetermined signal. 13 dancing girls
\n       of the bar cum dancing hall of Eldrado in turn were
\n       detained along with Manmohan @ Babbo Kalra a
\n       partner in the said hotel.          A case vide
\n       F.I.R.No.391\/06 dated 4\/5\/06 U\/S 294\/109\/34 I.P.C.
\n       & 8 I.T.P. Act has been registered at P.S.
\n       Nizamuddin.    Sufficient number of lady police
\nCrl.M.C.No.2111\/07 & conn.matters                    Page 9 of 27<\/span>
\n        officers were also member of the raiding party.
\n       Investigation of the case has been taken by Insp.
\n       Ran Singh of A.R. cell crime branch.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
5.     It is apparent that the matter was of public concern
\nand that was the reason why the police released a press
\nrelease. The incident was published in various newspapers
\nthe day next i.e. 5.6.2006 and since the above-captioned
\npetitions pertain to news published in 4 newspapers, we
\nreproduce the contents thereof.\n<\/p>\n
6.     In the newspaper \u201eThe Times of India\u201f it was reported
\nas under:-\n<\/p>\n
       “Police Swoop on S.Delhi \u201edance bar\u201f 13 Girls,
\n       Hotel Owner Nabbed<\/p>\n
       New Delhi: An illegal dance bar being run in a
\n       south Delhi hotel was busted by crime branch on
\n       Saturday. Fourteen persons – 13 dance bar girls
\n       and one of the hotel owners – were arrested on
\n       several charges, ranging from obscenity to
\n       immoral trafficking and abetment.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       The accused girls were allegedly caught dancing
\n       in a scantily clad state. “A raid was conducted
\n       on the premises of El Dorado dance bar in Hotel
\n       Rajdoot after a signal from an undercover cop,
\n       who had been present inside. The girls were
\n       caught red-handed,” said Tejendra Luthra, DCP
\n       (crime branch). “We also arrested Manmohan
\n       alias Babbu Kalra, who is a partner in the hotel,”
\n       he added.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       An FIR was registered at the Nizamuddin police
\n       station under the relevant sections of the IPC and
\n       the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act on Sunday.
\n       The girls were later released on bail.
\n       Police said the girls were aged between 20 and
\n       30 and hailed from lower middle-class families.
\n       While four of them are from Delhi, two each are
\nCrl.M.C.No.2111\/07 & conn.matters                    Page 10 of 27<\/span>
\n        from Bihar, Noida and Punjab and one each from
\n       Kolkata and Allahabad. The last woman, the only
\n       married person among the girls, said she was a
\n       hotel guest. Police suspect that her husband
\n       was also involved in the racket. He was detained
\n       for questioning.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       During interrogation, it was revealed that some
\n       of the accused girls were employed in Mumbai
\n       dance bars but after those establishments were
\n       shut down they were forced to shift base to the
\n       Capital. Crime branch officials were tipped-off
\n       about the hotel\u201fs flourishing business on account
\n       of floor dance shows.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Rajdoot Hotel had apparently been hosting
\n       clandestine shows for their clients since the past
\n       six years or more, charging `500 as entry fees.
\n       Inside Eldorado bar the dance girls “lured
\n       customers with obscene gestures”. The owners
\n       of the hotel allegedly facilitated the dance bar
\n       girls with rooms where they indulged in flesh
\n       trade, apart from providing the dance floor.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Further investigations revealed that the hotel
\n       owner had an elaborate system in place to avoid
\n       detection by the police. “Sophisticated gadgets
\n       used for security monitoring were installed at
\n       strategic points to alert the hotel administration
\n       at the slightest hint of trouble,” a senior official
\n       said.    “That apart, they had hired several
\n       bouncers muscle men and additional security
\n       guards to keep them informed of any law-
\n       enforcement activity in and around the hotel,”
\n       added the official.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Undercover cops entered the bar as guests late
\n       on Saturday night, and signaled the raiding
\n       police team around 11.30 pm, after the “erotic
\n       dancing” began. Within minutes, the hotel was
\n       surrounded by uniformed policemen.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Crl.M.C.No.2111\/07 & conn.matters                      Page 11 of 27<\/span><\/p>\n
 7.     In the newspaper \u201eDainik Bhaskar\u201f it was published as
\nunder:-\n<\/p>\n
        “13 GIRLS INVOLVED IN FLESH TRADE ARRESTED<\/p>\n
             Bhaskar News. New Delhi, 4 June, Delhi
\n       Police Crime Branch has arrested 13 girls who
\n       were in the flesh trade from Rajdoot Hotel on
\n       Mathura Road.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             The Police have said on Saturday night the
\n       Crime Branch raided Rajdoot Hotel and arrested
\n       13 girls. They said the ages of all the girls were
\n       between 20 to 25 years. They are residing in
\n       Mumbai and working in Dance Bars. After the
\n       Dance Bar shut down the shifted to Delhi and
\n       started working in Rajdoot Hotel and under the
\n       cover of doing massage, started working in the
\n       flesh trade. The Police have arrested one
\n       middleman in connection with this. His name is
\n       Manmohan.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
8.     In the newspaper \u201eThe Pioneer\u201f it was published as
\nunder:-\n<\/p>\n
       “13 dance bar girls, owner of posh hotel arrested<\/p>\n
       The owner of a hotel in a posh south Delhi
\n       locality and 13 dance bar girls performing there
\n       were arrested after police raided its premises in
\n       the wee hours today, police said.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Acting on a tip-off, Delhi Police sleuths raided
\n       Hotel Rajdoot near Nizamuddin and arrested
\n       Babbu Kalra, one of the partners of the hotel,
\n       and 13 bar dancers most of them brought here
\n       from Mumbai.      The girls were arrested on
\n       charges of performing obscene and provocative<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.No.2111\/07 & conn.matters                    Page 12 of 27<\/span>
\n        sexual acts, while Kalra is being charged with
\n       aiding and abetting them, police said.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Most of the girls have been brought from
\n       Mumbai, where they were working in bars before
\n       the Maharashtra Government closed them down,
\n       police added”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
9.     The next day i.e. on 06.06.2006 in the newspaper \u201eThe
\nPioneer\u201f it was further published as under:-\n<\/p>\n
       “Bar Girls back on Rajdoot Floor
\n       Hotel earns         more     from   dance   bars   than    room
\n       occupancy
\n       Neeraj Chauhan New Delhi
\n       The 13 girls, who were caught while dancing, serving
\n       drinks and enticing guests at Rajdoot Hotel on Sunday
\n       were back, in business at the hotel\u201fs Eldorado, bar on
\n       Monday.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       According to a senior police officer, failing to have a
\n       brisk business, the three star-rated hotel served
\n       everything – girls, wine and music against provisions
\n       of licensing act. More than 90 percent business of the
\n       hotel was from dance bar girls, as room occupancy
\n       rate was very low. Rajdoot hotel is the only three star
\n       hotel in Delhi where floor shows take place.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       The officer also informed that all these girls are from
\n       lower middle class families and most of them are
\n       unmarried or divorcees. They had worked in Mumbai
\n       bars earlier and know how to attract customers. They
\n       were being paid `10,000\/- per month apart from what
\n       they get on the dance floor.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Earlier 79 girls were arrested by Crime Branch from
\n       this hotel in 1988. Manmohan Kalra alias Babbu (50)
\n       runs this hotel in partnership with his brother Prem
\nCrl.M.C.No.2111\/07 & conn.matters                           Page 13 of 27<\/span>
\n        Kalra but Prem, has nothing to do with Eldorado bar.
\n       The hotel managed to book only seven to eight rooms
\n       on a normal day and Kalra was unable to pay the
\n       salary to its 80 staff.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       He used to run two shows daily for two hours each
\n       from 8:30 pm till midnight. Entry ticket here was `500
\n       out of which `250 went towards entertainment tax.
\n       Liquor was too served in the bar and was very
\n       expensive – a bottle of beer cost `485.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Customers were charged heavily for food. The bar has
\n       a capacity 50 to 60 people. According to the officer,
\n       prostitution was allowed in the hotel rooms itself and
\n       big customers were given a better deal.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       The officer says, “If a customer liked any girl and
\n       wanted her to dance again on his favourite song then
\n       he was charged `2,500 for that particular song”.
\n       Babbu himself used to prompt girls to make eye
\n       contact with the customers so that they throw more
\n       money. Every show yielded over `One lakh to Babbu.
\n       He kept 50 percent himself, 10 percent was given to
\n       the waiters and bouncers and rest was given to the
\n       other staff. The girls used to keep some amount from
\n       the tip money.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       According to the officer, Babbu himself lived in room
\n       no.318 with a Russian girl. He told the police that the
\n       girls themselves contacted him. Most of the girls are in
\n       the age group of 20 to 24 except one Neelu (name
\n       changed) who used to design dresses for the shows.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Four girls are from Mumbai and were staying in hotel
\n       rooms. Rest of these girls are from areas like CR Park,
\n       Dwarka, Rohini, Lodhi Road and Laxmi Nagar of Delhi.
\n       The Delhi girls also used to stay in hotel rooms and
\n       indulge in prostitution. Babbu used hi-tech monitoring
\n       gadgets like CCTV cameras and magic eyes which
\nCrl.M.C.No.2111\/07 & conn.matters                    Page 14 of 27<\/span>
\n        were monitored from Room No.512 and 513 of the
\n       hotel and if a local cop visited there then the set-up
\n       was changed.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
10.    On 05.06.2006, in the newspaper \u201eDainik Jagran\u201f the
\nnews was published in Hindi and its translation reads as
\nunder:-\n<\/p>\n
       “13 Bar Girls arrested from Hotel
\n       New Delhi, JS. Thirteen Bar Girls, dancing in
\n       provocative and semi-nude condition, arrested
\n       from Rajdoot Hotel at Mathura Road, by the
\n       Crime Branch of Delhi Police on Saturday night.
\n       Police has also arrested Manmohan alias Bablu
\n       Kalra, a partner of the Hotel. With these arrests,
\n       police has unearthed a racket of bringing
\n       Mumbai Bar Dancers to Delhi and making them
\n       to dance in Hotels.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       It has been reported, that police had received a
\n       secret     information that the Bar Girls, brought
\n       from Mumbai, are being used to lure the
\n       customers for prostitution by their stimulating
\n       dances in the Rajdoot Hotel. For this purpose,
\n       the Hotel is providing the rooms and other
\n       facilities to its customer illegally. For reaching
\n       on the dance floor, for obscene dancing with
\n       music, the Hotel is charging Rupees Five
\n       Hundred from each customer.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Police had information that to avoid any kind of
\n       raid, Hotel had got installed highly sophisticated
\n       Cameras and other equipments at various places
\n       in the Hotel including Entry Gate. It was also
\n       learnt that Hotel owner has deputed Bouncers,
\n       Wrestlers and additional security guards to stop
\n       any raiding staff at the gate itself. This
\n       information was found correct when these were
\n       confirmed by the sources. Thereafter, one police
\n       team, led by ACP P.P.Singh, conducted a raid at
\n       Elderado Dance bar and arrested 13 Bar Girls
\nCrl.M.C.No.2111\/07 & conn.matters                    Page 15 of 27<\/span>
\n        alongwith Manmohan.        A case under various
\n       sections for indulging in the prostitution has
\n       been registered at Police Station Nizamuddin.
\n       The investigations of case have been entrusted
\n       to Inspector Ran Singh. On enquiry, it has been
\n       learnt that these Bar Girls belong to poor families
\n       and they are in this profession, since their minor
\n       age, due to compelling circumstances. The Bar
\n       Girls, in the age of 20 to 30 years, are in this
\n       profession for years together.       However, the
\n       Patiala Court has granted Bail to these Bar Girls.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
11.    On 27.6.2006 as a follow up story in the newspaper
\n\u201eDainik Jagaran\u201f a further publication was made in Hindi,
\ntranslated version thereof reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
       “Mumbai Bar Girls enticing the hearts of Delhians
\n       Pradeep Kumar Singh, New Delhi
\n       The love for Mumbai Bar Girls in Delhi is famous
\n       these days. These Bar Girls, came in Delhi in the
\n       search of jobs, are not only enticing the general
\n       public but also becoming a headache for Delhi
\n       Police.   The number of girls reaching from
\n       Mumbai to Delhi can be presumed with the fact
\n       that more than one and a half dozen girls have
\n       been arrested by the police within a period of
\n       one month. As per sources, the numbers of these
\n       Girls have reached in hundreds, who are staying
\n       at Five Star Hotels, Kothis and Farm Houses.
\n       It is well known that hundred of girls from Bihar,
\n       Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Gujrat and Delhi
\n       were earning from Dance Bars at Mumbai, but
\n       the closing of Dance Bars in Mumbai, disturbed
\n       their routine and they get their new shelter at
\n       Delhi. There is another reason behind this, that
\n       most of the customers staying with these girls in
\n       Dance Bars and Five Star Hotels have connection
\n       with Delhi also. Some have their business in
\n       Delhi and some others used to visit Delhi often<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.No.2111\/07 & conn.matters                     Page 16 of 27<\/span>
\n        for their business. The geographical condition of
\n       Delhi also helps them. Some days back, the
\n       Crime Branch of Delhi Police had arrested 11 Bar
\n       Girls from Rajdoot Hotel of South Delhi in a raid.
\n       All these Dancers were enticing the public of
\n       Delhi after the closure of Dance Bars in Mumbai.
\n       Arrests have been made from Greater Kailash,
\n       Lajpat Nagar and Sarojini Nagar areas also.
\n       Another Bar Dancer of Mumbai was arrested with
\n       Raju Sansi, a notorious Bank Dacoit, by the
\n       Special staff of South District, but she was
\n       released as she had no criminal records. It is
\n       surprising that Bar Girls have made connection
\n       with criminals also.       These criminals have
\n       connection with Mumbai also. As per police, it is
\n       a matter of concern. The gangs of criminals can
\n       use these lucrative girls for kidnapping, loot etc.
\n       crimes. Their Company is giving double benefits
\n       to criminals. The Company of girls gives them
\n       easy way to get shelter and also in spreading
\n       their network. Police has information of all these
\n       incidents, but they hesitate to nab them in the
\n       absence of evidence.       According to a senior
\n       officer, despite the dismissal of one Sub-
\n       Inspector of Crime Branch in the matter of Dance
\n       Bar case and Police Commissioner\u201fs keeping it in
\n       the category of an organized crime, the Station
\n       House Officers are opting to close their eyes
\n       from this side.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Hite-outs of middlemen: Besides the posh
\n       colonies of Greater Kailash, Defence Colony,
\n       South Ex, Saket PVR, Vasant Vihar, Vasant Kunj
\n       and Connaught Place, facility of dealing is
\n       available on mobile phones also.               After
\n       finalization of deal, the Bar Girls are dropped and
\n       picked-up in luxurious vehicles.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
12.    Alleging     that     the    afore-noted   news   items   were
\ndefamatory of Hotel Rajdoot and its owner, Sh.Manmohan
\nKalra, the stated owner of the hotel filed complaints before
\nCrl.M.C.No.2111\/07 & conn.matters                          Page 17 of 27<\/span>
\n the learned ACMM alleging that the accused named in the
\ncomplaints       had    committed          offences    punishable         under
\nSection 499\/500 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
13.     I reproduce in a tabular form the name of the accused
\nas also the designation and the concerned petition filed by
\nthe    person     concerned          in   respect     to   the   4     criminal
\ncomplaints filed by respondent No.2 pertaining to the news
\nitems published in the Times of India, Dainik Bhaskar, The
\nPioneer and Dainik Jagran. It reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
       (A) Newspaper- THE TIMES OF INDIA
\n             Name of                 Designation             Petition No.
\n             Accused
\n           Vineet Jain                Managing              Petitioner in
\n                                       Director               Crl.M.C.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n                                                             2111\/2007\n          Arindam Sen                     Editor           Petitioner No. 1<\/span>\n              Gupta                                          in Crl.M.C.\n                                                             2704\/2007\n          Balraj Arora               Printer and           Petitioner No. 2<\/span>\n                                      Publisher              in Crl.M.C.\n                                       (Bennett              2704\/2007\n                                    Coleman & Co.\n                                         Ltd.)\n\n\n\n\n       (B) Newspaper- DAINIK BHASKAR\n\n             Name of                  Designation            Petition No.\n             Accused\n             Ramesh                   Editor                 Crl.M.C.\n             Chander                                        2863\/200\n             Agarwal                                             7<\/span>\n\nCrl.M.C.No.2111\/07 & conn.matters                                    Page 18 of 27<\/span>\n        (C) Newspaper- DAINIK JAGARAN\n             Name of                 Deisgnation     Petition No.\n             Accused\n           Mahinder                 Chairman cum     (Petitioner\n          Mohan Gupta                 Managing        Crl. M.C.\n                                       Director      182\/2008).\n\n\n\n\n          Sanjay Gupta                  Editor       Petitioner\n                                                      No. 1 Crl.\n                                                        M.C.\n                                                     1052\/2008\n        Pradeep Kumar                 Reporter       Petitioner\n                                                      No. 2 Crl.\n                                                        M.C.\n                                                     1052\/2008\n\n\n       (D) Newspaper- PIONEER\n             Name of                 Designation        Petition No\n             Accused\n        Durbar Ganguly              Joint Managing        Petitioner\n                                        Director     Crl.M.C.3082\/2007\n         Chandan Mitra               Printer and          Petitioner\n                                      publisher      Crl.M.C.3083\/2007\n             Manoj CG                Reporter, PTI       Petitioner in\n                                                     Crl.M.C.1224\/2008\n\n\n\n\nCrl.M.C.No.2111\/07 & conn.matters                             Page 19 of 27<\/span>\n<\/pre>\n
 14.    Defamation has been defined as a false statement
\nwhich has the tendency to disparage the good name or
\nreputation of another person. Strictly speaking, in terms of
\nthe statute, as per Section 499 Indian Penal Code, the
\noffence of defamation consists of three vital components
\nwhich can be categorised as under:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (i) Making or publishing        any   imputation
\n       concerning any person.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (ii) Such imputation must have been made by
\n       words either written or spoken or by visible
\n       representation.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (iii) Such imputation must be made with the
\n       intention to cause harm or with the knowledge
\n       or having reasons to believe that it will harm the
\n       reputation of the person concerned.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
15.    Petitioners contend that apart from the reporter, the
\neditor, printer and publisher would be liable if a scandalous
\npublication relates to a newspaper and additionally would
\nurge that if a newspaper truthfully reports a news item,
\npertaining to a fact which is of public interest, nobody can
\nbe prosecuted for the offence of defamation.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
16.    The complainant alleges that the news items are per
\nse defamatory and that all accused would be liable.\n<\/p>\n
17.    A fair reporting pertaining to a matter of public
\nconcern, without insinuations and innuendos i.e. a news
\nitem containing statements of true facts is not actionable for
\nthe offence of criminal defamation.\n<\/p>\n
18.    I have a relook at the news reports. They have been
\nextracted by me in paras 6 to 11 above.\n<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.No.2111\/07 & conn.matters                    Page 20 of 27<\/span><\/p>\n
 19.    Pertaining to the newspaper \u201eThe Times of India\u201f the
\nnews item is extracted in para 6 above. The contents of the
\nFIR have been noted in para 2 and 3 above.            The press
\nrelease has been noted in para 4 above.\n<\/p>\n
20.    The news item simply publishes the fact of the raid
\nconducted and 13 dance bar girls being apprehended.           The
\nnature of activity as per the FIR at the dance bar has been
\nreported.       Similar is the position with the news item
\npublished in the 3 other newspapers.\n<\/p>\n
21.    I would highlight that the source on which the
\npublishers acted was a proper source i.e. the police. The 9 th
\nexception to Section 499 IPC is prima facie attracted. There
\nare no innuendos in the publications. A fact pertaining to an
\nFIR being registered with reference to the activities found to
\nbe carried out from Hotel Rajdoot as recorded in the FIR has
\nbeen published.          The FIR was made public by the police
\nalong with a press release.\n<\/p>\n
22.    Pertaining to the liability, primarily a reporter is
\nresponsible for his act of defamation and vicarious liability is
\nfastened only on the printer, publisher and editor of the
\nnewspaper as held by me in my judgment dated 21.9.2007
\ndisposing of Crl.M.C. No.35\/2005 \u201eMrs.Shobhana Bhartia &
\nOrs. vs. NCT of Delhi & Anr.\u201f.       Thus, unless the contrary is
\nproved the persons declared as printer, publisher and editor
\nof the newspaper who would be presumed to be responsible
\nfor the contents of the newspaper on the question whether
\nany person other than the printer, publisher and editor can
\nbe prosecuted for a defamatory article, apart from the
\nreporter, needs a few decisions to be noted:-\n<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.No.2111\/07 & conn.matters                      Page 21 of 27<\/span><\/p>\n
        “(i) State of Maharashtra v R.B. Chowdhari, AIR
\n       1968 SC 110:- The public prosecutor filed a
\n       complaint under Section 500 IPC against four
\n       persons who were members of the Editorial Board
\n       of a Marathi weekly named “Maharashtra”. One of
\n       the accused, Sudhakar Gopal Madane, had filed
\n       the declaration in the prescribed form under the
\n       Act describing himself as the editor, printer and
\n       publisher of the newspaper. The particular copy
\n       of the Maharashtra in which the alleged
\n       defamatory article appeared bore the name of
\n       one Madane as the printer, publisher and editor
\n       of the newspaper. It also showed on the front
\n       page that the Editorial Board consisted of Madane
\n       and three other accused. The question arose
\n       whether the members of Editorial Board could be
\n       prosecuted for defamatory article. Adverting to
\n       Section 7, the Supreme Court held that:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              “7. The term ‘editor’ is defined in the Act to
\n              mean a person who controls the selection of
\n              the matter that is published in a newspaper.
\n              Where there is mentioned an editor is a
\n              person who is responsible for selection of
\n              the material. Section 7 raises the
\n              presumption in respect of such a person.
\n              The name of that person has to be printed
\n              on the copy of the newspaper and in the
\n              present case the name of Madane
\n              admittedly was printed as the Editor of the
\n              Maharashtra in the copy of the Maharashtra
\n              which contained the defamatory article. The
\n              declaration in Form I which has been
\n              produced before us shows the name of
\n              Madane not only as the printer and
\n              publisher but also as the editor. In our
\n              opinion the presumption will attach to
\n              Madane as having selected the material for
\n              publication in the newspaper. It may not be
\n              out of place to note that Madane admitted
\n              that he had written this article. In the
\n              circumstances not only the presumption
\n              cannot be drawn against the others who had
\nCrl.M.C.No.2111\/07 & conn.matters                      Page 22 of 27<\/span>
\n               not declared themselves as editors of the
\n              newspaper but it is also fair to leave them
\n              out because they had no concern with the
\n              publishing of the article in question. On the
\n              whole therefore the order of discharge
\n              made by the learned single Judge appears
\n              to be proper in the circumstances of the
\n              case and we see no reason to interfere.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (ii) T.K.S.Muthukoya v Haji C.H. Mohammad
\n       Koya, (1979) 2 SCC 8:-Question before Supreme
\n       Court was whether the Chief Editor of a
\n       newspaper can be prosecuted for publication of a
\n       defamatory article. In para 34 of the decision,
\n       Supreme Court observed as under:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              “34. From the facts established above, it is
\n              manifest that the petitioner has miserably
\n              failed to prove either that the appellant was
\n              the editor of the paper or that he was
\n              performing the        functions, duties or
\n              shouldering the responsibilities of the
\n              editor. It is obvious that a presumption
\n              under Section 7 of the Press Act could be
\n              drawn only if the person concerned was an
\n              editor within the meaning of Section 1 of
\n              the Press Act. Where however a person
\n              does not fulfil the conditions of Section 1 of
\n              the Press Act and does not perform the
\n              functions of an editor whatever may be his
\n              description or designation, the provisions of
\n              the Press Act would have no application….”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (iii) K.M. Mathew v State of Kerela & Anr., 1992
\n       CriLJ 3779:- In relation to prosecution of Chief
\n       Editor of a newspaper for publication of a
\n       defamatory news article, Supreme Court
\n       observed as under:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              “9. In the instant case there is no averment
\n              against the Chief Editor except the motive
\n              attributed to him. Even the motive alleged
\n              is general and vague. The complainant
\nCrl.M.C.No.2111\/07 & conn.matters                       Page 23 of 27<\/span>
\n               seems to rely upon the presumption under
\n              Section 7 of the Press and Registration of
\n              Books Act, 1867 (‘the Act’). But Section 7 of
\n              the Act has no applicability for a person
\n              who is simply named as ‘Chief Editor’. The
\n              presumption under Section 7 is only against
\n              the person whose name is printed as
\n              ‘editor’ as required under Section 5(1).
\n              There is a mandatory (though rebuttable)
\n              presumption that the person whose name
\n              is printed as ‘Editor’ is the editor of every
\n              portion of that issue of the newspaper of
\n              which a copy is produced. Section 1(1) of
\n              the Act defines ‘Editor’ to mean ‘the person
\n              who controls the selection of the matter
\n              that is published in a newspaper’. Section 7
\n              raises the presumption in respect of a
\n              person who is named as the editor and
\n              printed as such on every copy of the
\n              newspaper. The Act does not recognise any
\n              other    legal   entity    for  raising   the
\n              presumption. Even if the name of the Chief
\n              Editor is printed in the newspaper, there is
\n              no presumption against him under Section
\n              7 of the Act. See State of Maharashtra v
\n              R.B. Chowdhari, AIR 1968 SC 110; D.P.
\n              Mishra v Kamal Narain Sharma & Ors, AIR
\n              1970 SC 856; Narasingh Charan Mohanty v
\n              Surendra Mohanty, AIR 1974 SC 47; Haji
\n              C.H.    Mohammad       Koya    v   T.K.S.M.A.
\n              Muthukoya, AIR 1979 SC 154.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              10. It is important to state that for a
\n              Magistrate to take cognizance of the
\n              offence as against the Chief Editor, there
\n              must be positive averments in the
\n              complaint       of     knowledge      of    the
\n              objectionable character of the matter. The
\n              complaint in the instant case does not
\n              contain any such allegation. In the absence
\n              of such allegation, the Magistrate was
\n              justified in directing that the complaint so
\n              far as it relates to the Chief Editor could not
\nCrl.M.C.No.2111\/07 & conn.matters                        Page 24 of 27<\/span>
\n               be proceeded with. To ask the Chief Editor
\n              to undergo the trial of the case merely on
\n              the ground of the issue of process would be
\n              oppressive. No person should be tried
\n              without a prima facie case. The view taken
\n              by the High Court is untenable. The appeal
\n              is accordingly allowed. The order of the
\n              High Court is set aside.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (iv) Sardar Nihal Singh v Arjan Das, 1983 CrLJ
\n       777:- A learned Single Judge of this court was
\n       considering whether the Chairman and Executive
\n       Editor of a newspaper could be prosecuted for
\n       publication of a defamatory article. With
\n       reference to Chairman, it was observed as
\n       under:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              “Needless to say that as Chairman of the
\n              Company Shri Goenka can be held liable for
\n              the publication of the offending news items
\n              only if it is shown that he was somehow
\n              concerned with the publication of the
\n              defamatory news items. It is highly doubtful
\n              that he can be asked to answer the charge
\n              of    defamation    merely     because   he
\n              happened to be the Chairman of the
\n              Company owning the newspaper without
\n              there being any further evidence as
\n              regards his participation in the actual
\n              management and administration of the
\n              affairs of the company. Intention on the
\n              part of the accused to harm the reputation
\n              or the knowledge or reasonable belief that
\n              an imputation will harm the reputation of
\n              the persons concerned is an essential
\n              ingredient of offence under S. 400, IPC but
\n              such evidence is totally missing in the
\n              instant case. Under the circumstances the
\n              impugned order as regards Shri Goenka
\n              cannot be sustained on this short ground.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Crl.M.C.No.2111\/07 & conn.matters                     Page 25 of 27<\/span><\/p>\n
        After referring to Section 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the
\n       Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, the
\n       learned Judge added:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              “However, it is difficult to draw such a
\n              presumption in the case of other petitioners
\n              viz., Arun Shorie, petitioner No. 2 and A. P.
\n              Dhar petitioner No. 4. Their names do not
\n              find place in the declaration printed on the
\n              newspaper itself and there is no iota of
\n              evidence to show that they are in any
\n              manner concerned with the collection,
\n              control or selection of the matter printed in
\n              the newspaper. Their designations as
\n              Executive Editor\/Editor of the Express News
\n              Service will not per se warrant an inference
\n              that they are in any way responsible for the
\n              selection of the material. An authority for
\n              this view may be found in the State of
\n              Maharashtra v. R. B. Chowdhari, AIR<\/a> 1968
\n              SC 110.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
23.    From the afore-noted judicial pronouncement, it can
\nsafely be said that besides persons declared as editor,
\nprinter and publisher of a newspaper, only such persons
\ncould be prosecuted for an action of defamation against
\nwhom specific and clear allegations have been made in the
\ncomplaint that either he was responsible for selection of the
\ndefamatory matter or had personal knowledge about the
\ncontents of the defamatory matter. In addition, it must also
\nbe averred in the complaint that such person had the
\nintention to harm or had knowledge or reason to believe
\nthat the imputation will harm the reputation of the
\ncomplainant. The chairman or the managing director of a
\ncompany owning a newspaper is neither the editor, nor the
\nprinter, nor the publisher and therefore no presumption can
\nCrl.M.C.No.2111\/07 & conn.matters                      Page 26 of 27<\/span>
\n be drawn against the holder of these offices even though
\nthey are, by reason of the office held by them, in charge of
\nand responsible to the company for the conduct of its
\nbusiness.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
24.    I do not find any such pleadings in the complaint
\nagainst Vineet Jain, Mahinder Mohan Gupta and Durbur
\nGanguly and thus qua them the complaints are liable to be
\nquashed on the sole ground that merely because Vineet Jain
\nis the managing director of Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd.,
\nMahinder Mohan Gupta is the Chairman-cum-Managing
\nDirector of the company publishing the newspaper \u201eDainik
\nJagran\u201f and Durbur Ganguly is the Joint Managing Director of
\nthe company publishing the newspaper \u201eThe Pioneer\u201f, on the
\nreason of the office held by them, they cannot be made
\nliable.\n<\/p>\n
25.    Qua the rest I hold that the news items contain no
\ninnuendos.        A fact of an FIR being registered with the
\ncontents thereof has been published. The publication of the
\nnews item pertains to a matter of public interest.         The
\npublication is a true and a faithful report of a fact.         I
\nhighlight that the reporters have not carried out any
\n\u201einvestigative journalism\u201f.\n<\/p>\n
26.    The petitions are allowed. The complaints impugned
\nin each petition as also the summoning order are quashed.\n<\/p>\n
27.    No costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                    (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
\n                                           JUDGE
\nOctober 10, 2011
\ndk
\nCrl.M.C.No.2111\/07 & conn.matters                  Page 27 of 27<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Vineet Jain vs Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 10 October, 2011 Author: Pradeep Nandrajog * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved On: 30th September, 2011 Judgment Delivered On: 10th October, 2011 + CRL.M.C.2111\/2007 VINEET JAIN ….. Petitioner Through: Mr.Manish Shukla and Mr.Yoginder Handoo, Advocates versus […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-17983","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nVineet Jain vs Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 10 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vineet-jain-vs-nct-of-delhi-ors-on-10-october-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vineet Jain vs Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 10 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vineet-jain-vs-nct-of-delhi-ors-on-10-october-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-10-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-16T05:48:30+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"35 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vineet-jain-vs-nct-of-delhi-ors-on-10-october-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vineet-jain-vs-nct-of-delhi-ors-on-10-october-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vineet Jain vs Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 10 October, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-16T05:48:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vineet-jain-vs-nct-of-delhi-ors-on-10-october-2011\"},\"wordCount\":6319,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vineet-jain-vs-nct-of-delhi-ors-on-10-october-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vineet-jain-vs-nct-of-delhi-ors-on-10-october-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vineet-jain-vs-nct-of-delhi-ors-on-10-october-2011\",\"name\":\"Vineet Jain vs Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 10 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-16T05:48:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vineet-jain-vs-nct-of-delhi-ors-on-10-october-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vineet-jain-vs-nct-of-delhi-ors-on-10-october-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vineet-jain-vs-nct-of-delhi-ors-on-10-october-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vineet Jain vs Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 10 October, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Vineet Jain vs Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 10 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vineet-jain-vs-nct-of-delhi-ors-on-10-october-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vineet Jain vs Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 10 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vineet-jain-vs-nct-of-delhi-ors-on-10-october-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-10-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-16T05:48:30+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"35 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vineet-jain-vs-nct-of-delhi-ors-on-10-october-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vineet-jain-vs-nct-of-delhi-ors-on-10-october-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vineet Jain vs Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 10 October, 2011","datePublished":"2011-10-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-16T05:48:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vineet-jain-vs-nct-of-delhi-ors-on-10-october-2011"},"wordCount":6319,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vineet-jain-vs-nct-of-delhi-ors-on-10-october-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vineet-jain-vs-nct-of-delhi-ors-on-10-october-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vineet-jain-vs-nct-of-delhi-ors-on-10-october-2011","name":"Vineet Jain vs Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 10 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-10-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-16T05:48:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vineet-jain-vs-nct-of-delhi-ors-on-10-october-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vineet-jain-vs-nct-of-delhi-ors-on-10-october-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vineet-jain-vs-nct-of-delhi-ors-on-10-october-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vineet Jain vs Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 10 October, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17983","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=17983"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17983\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=17983"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=17983"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=17983"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}