A special civil court has dismissed the high-profile defamation suit filed by Congress leader and Member of Parliament (MP) Nana Patole against Maharashtra’s current Director General of Police (DGP) Rashmi Shukla. Patole had demanded damages of over Rs 500 crore, claiming that his reputation had been tarnished. The case, registered as Spl. Civil Suit No. 323/2022 (Nana Patole Vs. Rashmi Shukla & others), based on a First Information Report (FIR) lodged at Bund Garden Police Station in Pune on February 25, 2022. Patole argued that the contents of the FIR defamed him and harmed his political and public image.

 

On that basis, he approached the court seeking the monetary compensation. However, DGP Shukla, represented by her counsel Sr Adv Devendra Chauhan and Adv Nishchay Jadhav, filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and requested rejection of the plaint. She argued that there was no cause of action against her, as the FIR was not registered by her against Patole. In fact, the FIR was filed by another person, Vaishali Laxman Chandgude, against Rashmi Shukla herself. Importantly, Patole was not named as an accused in that FIR. The defense also highlighted that the Bombay High Court had already quashed the FIR. Copies of the High Court orders in Criminal Writ Petition No. 680/2022 and Criminal Writ Petition No. 731/2022 were presented to the trial court which shows that the case had no legal foundation. During the hearing, the court carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. It referred to past judgments of the Supreme Court and various High Courts which held that merely lodging an FIR or complaint with lawful authorities cannot be treated as a public act of defamation.

 

The court observed that unless a competent court declares such a complaint false, no cause of action arises for filing a defamation suit. The judge also noted that the plaint filed by Patole did not mention the statutory notice required under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 161 of the Maharashtra Police Act before suing a public officer for actions performed in her official capacity. The absence of such notice made the suit further defective. In his order, Judge Anand S Munde, the 10th Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nagpur, stated that the plaint was unsustainable because it was based only on the contents of an FIR which neither named nor accused Patole. He stressed that a defamation case requires some form of “publication” of the alleged defamatory material and a private FIR does not amount to such publication. The court concluded that the plaint did not disclose any real cause of action and therefore deserved to be rejected. Accordingly, the trial court allowed the defendant’s application, rejected the plaint and dismissed the case. Sr Counsel Devendra Chauhan, Adv Nishchay Jadhav represented Shukla while Adv Amol Patne and Adv Porus Kotwal for petitioner Patole.