The High Court · 2025

Ms. Nowhera Shaik, D/o.- Shri Nana Saheb, aged about 38years, Occ. llgqaging .D1e9tor, Heera Group of Companies, R/6. H. No S-q_tSqtatitiSli, Sth floor, H.S. Residency, Vali Colony, Golkonda, Hyderabad. Heera Gold Exim Limited, A Company incorporated under the lndian Qgpn^arye_s Act, 1956, Having its Regist,ered office at rcq-2, etiz itiia, NMDC X Roads, Masab Tank, Hyderabid, Rep. by its Managing'Oirector, Uil Nowhera Shaik, D/o. Shri Nana Saheb. ...RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section ',l51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the_affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in o.s. No. 83s of 2012 by the Honbie chief Judge, city Civil Courts, Hyderabad pending disposal of the C.R.p., Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri. Mohd Asif Amjad Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: Sri K. Sai Krishna Mohan Rao The Court made the following: ORDER HONOURABLE SMT ]USTICE K.SU]ANA CIVIL EVISION PETITION No.2 704 F20 23 r I I ORDER Being aggrieved by the orders of learned Chief Judge; City Civil Court, Hyderabad dated 06'07'2023 in IA'No 3776 of 2022 inOs.No.B35of2OlT,whereunder,thelearnedChiefludge dismissed the request of the Revision petitioner in rejection of plaint under Order VII, Rule 11(a) of Civil Procedure Code (for short'C.P.C.') r/w 151 of C'P'C', the petitioner has filed this revision under Article 227 of Constitution of India'

2. The petitioner has filed the above said IA'No'3776 of 2022 under Order VII Rule 11 (a) of C'P'C' with a prayer to reject the plaint as there is no cause of action for filing the suit' The petition is filed stating that the suit filed seeking relief of damages for Rs.100 Crores. The petitioner herein is the President of ArNtu (All India Majlis Ittehadul Muslimeen) and Barrister as well, since inception into politics, won as MLA in the year 1994 from Chairman Constituency and continued by winning the same in the year 1994' Thereafter, the petitioner contested the Parliament election from Hyderabad constituency in the year 2004 and won the same' Since 2004 onwards' the C j 2 SKS.J C R.P. No.270l of2023 petitioner is elected as Member of Parliament from Hyderabad constituency represented the general public and the petitioner raised various important issues for upliftment of weaker sections' On 01.08.2012, the people of Charminar constituency brought to the notice of the petitioner that an advertisement is published in SIASAT Newspaper on 12-04-2012 inviting investors to invest in the business of the respondents' The advertisement was suspicious as it did not contain any specific address' and the respondents are duping people by attracting them with such type of advertisement, on which the petitioner brought the same to the notice of the Additional Director General of Police' Law and Order, by giving a written complaint to investigate into the matter.Therespondentswerefoundguiltyandthepolice department booked the case against the respondents vde FIR No.154 of 2Ol2 and after enquiry, a charge sheet was filed on 23-07-2OLg' and filing of charge sheet clearly states that the respondents have committed the offence and the same is pendingbeforetheMetropolitanSessionsJudge'Nampally' Hyderabail. In the circumstances, the petition is filed by the petitioner to reject the plaint as barred by limitation and for the lack of cause of action, and the earlier petition filed to reject the plaint is dismissed stating that the limitation involves mixed l ) ,,' t- 3 SKS.J C.R.P. No 2701 of202l question of fact of law. Further, in the changed circumstances, since the investigation is completed, charge sheet is filed against the respondents; there is no cause of action to entertain the suit.

3. Wherein, the respondents filed counter stating that the similar application filed by the petitioner in IA.No.768 of 2018 was dismissed on merits. In spite of the same, the present petition is filed on the allegation of changed circumstances and that the ground raised by the petitioner is not valid and not provided under Order VU Rule 11(a) of C.P.C. As per.the affidavit, the petitioner is seeking rejection of plaint on the ground of changed circumstances, therefore, maintainability of the suit is questionable. There is specific allegation about the suffering of damage to the image and reputation by respondent No.1 on account of vilification campaign by the petitioner and his henchmen. The respondents pleaded that filing of FIR is not disputed, mere-filing of charge sheet by the respondents and prosecution does not entitle the petitioner to seek rejection of plaint. More so, when the matters are sub-judice, the respondents are contesting the criminal cases filed by the petitioner and the judgments of the criminal courts are not binding on the Civil Court, hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. 4 SKS,J C R P. No-2701 of2023

4. The trial Court considered the arguments of both parties stating that the accused is deemed to be innocent until proven guilty before the criminal Court and mere filing of charge sheet cannot be taken as a ground to presume that the allegatioris made by the petitioner against the respondents are proved to be true and therefore, the suit filed by the respondents is a false suit, and only when a competent criminal court finds respondent No.1 as guilty of all the allegations against her, the petitioner can claim that the suit is filed on the basis of false allegations, as such, the petition is dismissed.

5. Aggrieved by the same, present petition is filed by the petitioner on the grounds that the trial Court ought to have seen the plaint in toto, as the respondent herein in Para No.11 of plaint stated that the final report of the police which was handed over to respbndent No.1 with a request after conducting thorough investigation in Crime No.154 of 2012 and despite Iapse of almost 5 years, police again hell bent at the behest of defendant- to harass, humiliate the complainant and her family unnecessarily. Though a detailed report for the closure of the case in FIR No.154 of 2OL2 was filed and the operative portion of the said Final Report states as under : 'As per the above it is 5 SKS-J C.R-P. No.270t of202l disclosed that there is no illegitimacy of business run by the alleged defendant and there is transparency in her deeds and further there is no complaint against from any either her investors or from general public. The complaint received is no-t specific and does not contain any details to show that the alleged defendant ,was committing the offence to defraud the public or investors. There is no evidence in the said complaint to proceed further with investigation. In view of the same, it is closed'. The said para itself is se lf-contrad ictory as the respondents had filed IA.No.2033 of 2022 to amend the plaint, wherein the respondents have categorically admitted that FIR No.154 of 2Ol2 was booked on the complaint of the petitioner herein and after enquiry and investigation, a charge sheet was filed on 23-07 -2019 before the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampally, Hyderabad. Further, the petitioner has relied on a judgment between "Ram Singh Batra Vs, Sharan Premf'l, where in, it is observed that his statement was published, unless it is defamatory per-se, is actionable on proof of that it is false and is defamatory. Further, a complaint to a lawful authority is not actionable unless it is established that a complaint itself as defamatory. He also relied on 'Vijay Gulati Vs. Radhika and 'Lews 1oru1 zooo 1a1 z+r 6 SKS.J C.R P No 2701 of2023 othets'z, wherein, the proposition held by the Court is that.,the power. under Order 7 Rule 1 1 is available to the Court to be exercised Suo Motu and it would take a clear case where. the court is satisfied", and the triar court not considered the same, as there are contrary statements in plaint itself. Once the suit is filed stating that the complaint is closed and later, filed amendment petition showing that charge sheet is Filed in same Crime, it cannot be said that the complaint is a false complaint and only to defame the plaintiff, the complaint is given by the defendant, as such, requested the court to set aside the order of the trial Court by allowing the rejection of the plaint petition. 6. Heard Sri Mohd. Asif Amjad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Sai Krishna Mohan Rao, learned counsel for the respondents.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that when the allegations are not proved as false, he cannot file a defamation suit against the complainant, whereas, the suit is filed on ttre false averments stating that complaint is closed, it itself shows that malaflde intention of the respondent No.1/plaintiff to harass the petitioner/defendant and the triar 'Llws 1olu1 zoro 1ro1 zas 7 SKS,J C.R.P. No.270l of202l Court not considered the same, as such, requested the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court by rejecting the suit. B. On tne other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that though charge sheet is filed, it is still pending. She is presuming to be innocent till the trial is concluded and no victim gave complaint against respondent No.2/plaintiff in any way and only to defame her, this petitioner filed a false complaint and he is on bail granted by the Hon,ble Supreme Court. Therefore, there is no genuineness in the complaint filed by the defendant, as such, on that basis plaint cannot be rejected. Further also submitted that there cannot be any second rejection of the plaint in the suit and the first petition is dismissed stating that the limitation is mixed question of law and facts, to be decided in the main suit. In view of the changed circumstances basing on the process of law, requested the Court to dismiss the petition.

9. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the respondents/plaintiffs initially filed the suit i.e., O.S.No.B35 of 2Ot7 claiming damages against the petitioner/defendant. The respondents areged that the compraint 8 SKS,J C.R.P. No.2?0t of2023 \ of the petitioner against her was false , malicious, and resulted in her dgfamation, causing significant harm to her .reputation in society. However, the petitioner has submitted that the complaint was not false' as evidenced by the subsequent filihg of a charge sheet in the FIR and the PendencY of criminal proceedings against the respondents' This submission raises significant doubts about the claim of the respondents of a false complaint' This Court notes that the cause of action of the respondents is premised on the assumption that the complaint of the petitioner was false and motivated by malice' However' the pendency of criminal proceedings against the respondents suggests that the complaint may have been genuine and based on credible information' 10. In light of these circumstances' this Court finds that the craim of the respondents of a farse compraint is premature. The reputation of the respondents and character are undoubtedly important, but they must be balanced against the need to ensure that genuine complaints are not stifled' Furthermore' allowing the suit of the respondents to proceed at this stage could potentially interfere with the pending criminal proceedings' It is essential to ensure that the criminal justice process is allowed to // I SKSJ C.R.P. No.270l of2023 unfold without undue influence or interference From civil proceedings.

11. In view of the above, this Court holds that the cause of action oF the respondents is not yet ripe for adjudication. Th-e respondents may file a suit after the conclusion of the trial in the criminal case, should she be acquitted of all charges. At that stage, the respondents can seek appropriate remedies for any alleged harm to her reputation. Accordingly, this Court allows the C.R.P. by rejecting the plaint, as the cause of action of the respondents is not yet ripe for adjudication. 12. Accordingry, this Civir Revision petition is ailowed setting aside the order dated 06.07.2023 passed in IA.No.3776 of 2022 in OS.No.835 of 2Ot7 by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous applications pending if any, are closed. SD/. T TIRUMALA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \ 1 v SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Chief Judge City Civil Court, Hyderabad 2. One CC to Sri. Mohd Asif Amjad, Advocate tOpUCt 3. One CC to Sri K Sai Krishna Mohan Rao, Advocate tOpUCj 4. Two CD Copies YY DL I t 7 * O i I :) '1: l:LA I \</ *s $ COs .o^ '._\= HIGH COURT DAf ED:0410212025 \Y ORDER CRP.No.2701 ol 2023 ALLOWING THE C.R.P ,R(,t G €