IN the COURT of SHRI SUMEET ANAND, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE07, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS NEW DELHI DISTRICT: NEW DELHI CC No.4629/2020 Dr
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SUMEET ANAND, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-07, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS NEW DELHI DISTRICT: NEW DELHI CC No.4629/2020 Dr. Abhishek Singhvi v. Sarosh Zaiwalla 18.03.2020 -:ORDER:- 1. Dr. Abhishek Singhvi (hereinafter complainant / aggrieved), son of Late Dr. L.M. Singhvi (hereinafter deceased) has approached this court by way of a complaint, made under section 200 read with section 190 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter Cr.P.C.), seeking summoning and trial of Sarosh Zaiwalla (hereinafter proposed accused) for commission of offence under section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter IPC) and to punish the proposed accused as per section 500 IPC. 2. The complainant is aggrieved by a passage contained in the book written by the proposed accused titled as, ©HONOUR BOUND ADVENTURES of an INDIAN LAWYER in the ENGLISH COURTS©. The book has already been published and is in circulation and available for reading. CC No.4629/2020 Dr. Abhishek Singhvi v. Sarosh Zaiwalla Page 1 of 27 3. The complainant alleges that in the concerned passage the proposed accused has made a speculative reference of the deceased, which the complainant contends to be inherently defamatory and clearly libelous on the face of it; and having been made with an intention to cause serious harm to the reputation of the complainant; and also made with an intention to be hurtful to the feelings of the family and relatives of the deceased. 4. The complainant also claims to be aggrieved by the statements made by the proposed accused, after the publication and in relation to the book authored by him, in his interview with the daily newspaper Times of India, which was published on 23.02.2020. The complainant alleges that the statements made by the proposed accused in the above referred interview are inherently defamatory and clearly libelous on the face of it; and having been made with an intention to cause serious harm to the reputation of the complainant; and also made with an intention to be hurtful to the feelings of the family and relatives of the deceased. 5. The complainant, as per the averments made in the complaint claims to be a reputed and respected member of society; and a renowned lawyer across India; and eminent jurist, a Parliamentarian, a Columnist, an author, commentator and a visible media personality. He also claims to be designated as a Senior Advocate CC No.4629/2020 Dr. Abhishek Singhvi v. Sarosh Zaiwalla Page 2 of 27 by Hon©ble Supreme Court of India at the age of 34 and also to have served as Additional Solicitor General at the age of 37 and that these distinctions are probably amongst the youngest accorded in India. He also claims to be one of the senior most National Spokesperson of the Indian National Congress Party and a senior and distinguished third term Member of Parliament in the Upper House. 6. Furthermore, the complainant as per the averments made in the complaint, claims to have been awarded the Global Leader of Tomorrow Award by World Economic Forum, Davos. That he also served as the Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee on law and justice, personnel and grievance. That he is a top ranking senior advocate of the nation with expertise in various fields of law including, but not limited to constitutional, international and commercial law. That he undertakes probono work and also helps freshers and other colleagues in the field of law, for which he is highly respected among the bar members. That, in view of his achievements, he is regularly invited as guest at various events and seminars for discussions on various aspects of law; and also for lectures in law schools. That there are various reported judgments in law journals such as SCC, JCC etc. in which he was a counsel; and therefore he has contributed vastly in the development of law. CC No.4629/2020 Dr. Abhishek Singhvi v. Sarosh Zaiwalla Page 3 of 27 7. The complainant, as per the averments made in the complaint claims that the deceased was also an eminent jurist, a leading constitutional expert, an acclaimed diplomat, a distinguished parliamentarian, an exponent of human rights, a doyen of Indian bar, an author, a poet, a publicist, a linguist and a litterateur. That he was a gold medalist in B.A. from Ahallabad University and an LL.B and M.A. from Jaipur University. That he was Rajasthan©s first Rotary Schooler to Harvard University for his LLM. That he also completed PhD/JSD from Cornell University, USA in a record two years. 8. Furthermore, the complainant as per the averments made in the complaint claims that the deceased served as Advocate General of Rajasthan from 1972 to 1977. That he served as a Parliamentarian in both Houses of Indian Parliament. That he has the distinction of serving as one of the longest serving High Commissioners for India to the United Kingdom from 1991 to 1997, a period which was widely acclaimed as the `Golden Era' of Indo-U.K. relationship. That during his tenure of High Commissioner to U.K. he covered the tenure of three British Prime Minister and five Indian Prime Ministers. That he also headed Indian delegation to the UN conference on human rights in Vienna in the year 1933. 9. Furthermore, the complainant as per the averments made in the complaint claims CC No.4629/2020 Dr. Abhishek Singhvi v. Sarosh Zaiwalla Page 4 of 27 that the deceased served as President of Indira Gandhi National Centre for Arts. That he was a Member of Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague and was also a part of Commission of enquiry into administration of justice in Trinidad and Tobago. That he was described by former Prime Minister of India Late Sh. Atal Bihari Vajpayee as ©Saraswati ± Putra©. 10. Complainant contends that the deceased earned immense name, fame and reputation in public at large through his sheer hard work. He further contends that he has scrupulously followed ethics in his advocacy and has unblemished record and that by working with complete honesty he had earned name, fame and reputation in the eyes of public at large through his sheer hard work. 11. The complainant in support of his claims and the averments made in the complaint, and in order to prove the same, himself stepped in the witness box; and at the stage of pre-summoning evidence he has been examined as CW1. In order to prove harm to his reputation and to the reputation of the deceased he examined CW2 Sh. Sumit Chander. No other witness has been examined by the complainant at the stage of pre-summoning evidence. 12. During his examination as CW1, the complainant placed on record one CC No.4629/2020 Dr. Abhishek Singhvi v. Sarosh Zaiwalla Page 5 of 27 copy/edition of the book written by the proposed accused. He also placed on record the copy/edition of newspaper Times of India dated 23.02.2020. He has also placed on record one letter dated 09.03.2020 written to him by one Vir Sanghvi on his letter head and bearing his signatures. In the said letter Vir Singhvi refuted to be the source of the alleged defamatory content published by the proposed accused in his book, as claimed by the proposed accused. These three documents are part of record and are exhibited as Ex.CW1/2, Ex.CW1/3 and Ex.CW1/4 respectively. The copies of these documents were already filed on record alongwith the complaint itself. 13. The signatures of Vir Sanghvi on Ex.CW1/4 at point ©A© have also been identified by the complainant in his testimony, recorded before the court as CW-1, on the strength of the fact that he has seen his signatures on a number of occasions. 14. This court has perused the entire record and has carefully considered the evidence led by the complainant and his witnesses at the stage of pre- summoning evidence. This court has also perused the documents placed on record and exhibited as evidence. The alleged defamatory portion / content, made in reference to the deceased, in the book titled as ©HONOUR BOUND ADVENTURES of an INDIAN LAWYER in the ENGLISH COURTS© is contained at CC No.4629/2020 Dr. Abhishek Singhvi v. Sarosh Zaiwalla Page 6 of 27 page 103 and 104. These two pages are part of one of the chapters / episode out of the total twelve chapters / episodes contained in the said book. Each chapter is distinct. This court has read chapter / episode five fully, which it titled as, ªBollywood, Bachchans and consequential damageº. This court has also read the entire interview of the proposed accused containing the defamatory portion / content in newspaper Times of India dated 23.02.2020. 15. The alleged defamatory portion/content referring the deceased in the book written by the proposed accused reads as, ªThe Bofors saga had also entangled me in a political uproar in India, with my name bandied about in Parliament. Rene Felber, the Swiss foreign minister, leaked a memo to a journalist that had been handed to him by his Indian counterpart, Madhavsinh Solanki. This note recommended to the Swiss government that it close its inquiry into the Bofors kickback. When this news reached India, Solanki admitted in Parliament that he was given a sealed envelope to give to Felber, but said he was unaware it contained a Bofors memo. Solanki further elaborated he was in his seat on the plane when ©a well-respected Indian lawyer in London© gave him the envelope and requested him to give it to the Swiss foreign minister.