Gujarat High Court Upholds Dismissal Of Defamation Case Filed By 2002 Gujarat Riots Victim Against Makers Of 'Rajdhani Express'

The case revolved around the unauthorized use of Ansari's image in the movie, which he claimed had damaged his reputation and personal safety.

Justice Sandeep N Bhatt observed, “It is rightly found by the Courts below that the complainant has not produced any evidence before the lower Court that the accused have used the photograph of the complainant with the intention of damaging the personal reputation of the complainant. Even the lower court has recorded in its order that no evidence has been produced that the complainant has suffered any loss due to such act of the accused.”

“The lower court has also noted in its order that no clear evidence has been produced that the plaintiff has done any act causing damage and the plaintiff has not examined the witnesses who can be said to be neutral in that regard. The complainant in this case has not produced any clear evidence that the reputation of the complainant has been damaged and such damage has been intentionally caused by the accused persons,” Justice Bhatt added.

The above ruling comes in a petition seeking to invalidate a prior order issued by the City Civil and Sessions Court in Ahmedabad, Gujarat. The order in question arose from a Criminal Revision Application before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad. The petitioner requested the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to proceed according to the law in a Criminal Miscellaneous Application against a proposed accused.

As per the factual matrix of the case, the petitioner, Kutubudin Ansari, was a victim of the 2002 riots that occurred in Gujarat. His image was widely circulated in newspapers as a symbol of the turmoil, causing significant trauma. As a result, Ansari had to relocate to Kolkata for a period of three years. He eventually returned to Gujarat in 2005 and has been residing at the address mentioned in the case's title.

The crux of the matter revolves around a film titled "Rajdhani Express" released on January 4, 2013. The petitioner was distressed to discover that an image of him, taken by a journalist during the Gujarat Riots in 2002, was used in the film without his prior approval or consent. Ansari contended that his portrayal in the film had severely damaged his reputation and jeopardized his personal safety and security.

In response, the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, with the Chief Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, alleging offenses under Section 499, 500, 153, read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Magistrate, after verifying the petitioner's claims, ordered an inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Subsequently, the Chief Additional Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed the petitioner's complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The basis for this dismissal was that the photographs and video compact disk submitted by the petitioner as evidence did not conclusively prove that the image used in the film "Rajdhani Express" belonged to the petitioner. Furthermore, it was not demonstrated that this had caused harm to the petitioner's reputation.

Discontented with this decision, the petitioner initially approached the High Court of Gujarat on March 10, 2014. However, the petitioner withdrew the application at a later stage with the liberty to file an appropriate application.

Following the withdrawal of the initial application, the petitioner filed a Criminal Revision Application with the City Civil and Sessions Court in Ahmedabad. The aim was to challenge the final order issued by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, seeking to overturn the order dated March 10, 2014, and requesting an investigation under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

The City Civil and Sessions Court rejected the Criminal Revision Application on several grounds: (i) petitioner, as the original complainant, failed to furnish any concrete evidence or proof illustrating the damage caused to his reputation, as well as the intentional involvement of the respondents in causing such harm; (ii) petitioner was unable to establish conclusively that the photograph used in the film exclusively belonged to him and not to any other individual.

In response to this rejection, Ansari filed a Special Criminal Application, seeking redress for these grievances.

The Court observed that there was no satisfactory evidence found by the trial Court from the material available on record, which constitutes offence alleged in the FIR.

Therefore, the Court opined, “since ingredients of the complaint are not satisfied on bare reading of the complaint as well as material available on record, the complaint is required to be dismissed under the provisions of Sections 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code.”

“Such order is challenged before the revisional Court, wherein Revision Court has also framed issues for determination and after considering the material available on record, it has found that the trial Court has given cogent and convincing reasons and the order passed by the trial Court is found to be just and proper. Revisional Court has also come to the conclusion that no prima faice offence is made out from the material available on record against the accused persons,” the Court added.

Therefore, considering all the facts and evidence, the Court ruled that both the lower Courts had appropriately assessed the available record material, arrived at concurrent factual conclusions, and correctly applied the relevant legal provisions.

Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the revisional Court had exercised its jurisdiction properly by upholding the trial Court's decision.

“Accordingly, present petition is dismissed. The impugned order dated 10.3.2014 passed by learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, below Exh.1 in Inquiry Application No.4 of 2013 and order dated 15.3.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Revision Application No.149 of 2016 are hereby confirmed,” the Court concluded.

Appearance: Mr AJ Yagnik(1372) For The Applicant(S) No. 1 For The Respondent(S) No. 2,3 Mr Chintan Dave, App For The Respondent(S) No. 1

LL Citation: 2023 Livelaw (Guj) 158

Case Title: Kutubuddin Ansari Versus State Of Gujarat

Case No.: R/Special Criminal Application No. 197 Of 2020

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment