You are on page 1of 18

IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

66th COURT AT ANDHERI, MUMBAI


CASE NO.

/2015

MISS. ESHA DHARMENDRA BHADURI


An adult, aged about 28 Years,

]
]

Indian Inhabitant,
Residing at D 403, Mahalaxmi Palace,
Near Old Building No. 11,
Andheri (West), Mumbai -400 063

]
]
]
]

Complainant

Versus
MR. RONIE SUNIL SHINDE

An adult, aged about 35 years,

Indian Inhabitant
]
Residing at B 504, Shine Apartment,Shristi ]
Complex,Peddar Road,

Mumbai- 400 032

]
Accused

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 500 OF INDIAN


PENAL COMPLAINT.
MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR

I,

MISS.

ESHA

DHARMENDRA

BHADURI,

an

adult,

the

complainant above named do hereby state and submit on solemn


affirmation as under:-

1. The complainant states that the complainant is a peace loving, law abiding
citizen of India and permanently residing at D 403, Mahalaxmi Palace,
Near Old Building No. 11, Andheri West, Mumbai 400 063 along with her
family members from last several years.

2. The complainant states that the complainant is filing the present complaint
u/s 500 of Indian Penal Code, the term defamation is defined under section
499 of Indian Penal Code, the defamation means Whoever, by words
either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible

representation, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any


person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that
such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said,
except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person.

There are mainly two types of defamation namely libel


(defamation by written or printed word, pictures, or in any form other
than by spoken words or gestures) and slander (defamation by
spoken words or sounds, sign language, gesture and the like)

3. The complainant further states that the accused is hereby guilty of slander
defamation, the brief facts of the case are as follows:

a. The complainant further states that the complainant is an actress


by profession since past five years. The complainant is a famous
actress and has a good reputation in the society.
b. The complainant further states that the complainants mother MRS.
HEMA DHARMENDRA BHADURI is a famous and a well-known
renowned movie star of 1990s and she has an excellent experience
and a good reputation in the Film Industry as well as in the society.
c. The complainant further states that the complainant, a well-known
celebrity, started her career as a tele-actress by doing lead role in
serial JUNOON in the year 2010. The said serial was very
popular and had earned high rating TRPs. Apart from this, the
complainant

has

also

performed

in

other

serials

namely

MAHABHARAT, PEHLA PYAAR, etc.


d. The complainant further states that as her performance were highly
appreciated on the small screen, she got her first break as a
leading actress in Bollywood movie namely SHIDDAT which did
reasonably well on the box office. All the more, my clients
performance, in particular, was well appreciated.

e. The complainant further states that thereafter the complainant also


performed well in other movies. The complainant further states that
the complainants movie namely KAAL, which was released on
dated 15th December 2015, complainants acting were critically
acclaimed.
f. The complainant further states that on dated 18 th December 2015,
complainants new movie was released namely KARMA which
fared well commercially.
g. The complainant further states that on dated 19 th December 2015,
the accuseds interview was conducted on channel BCC news
in its office situated at Poonam Chamber, R. N. Paskal Road,
Andheri at around 9.00 p.m. which being a prime hour, naturally
bound to be viewed by large number of audiences, wherein
accused was asked to review the complainants new movie namely
KARMA.
h. The complainant further states that in accuseds review which was
telecasted on BCC news, the accused stated that ESHA IS NOT
A GOOD ACTRESS, SHE IS HERE BECAUSE OF HER
MOTHERS GOODWILL, SHE SHOULD QUIT ACTING AND
SPARE THE CINEGOERS, the said statement was telecasted all
over India. The complainant further states that the said statement
was per se defamatory, libelous, and scandalous and was just to
defame the complainant.
i. The complainant further states that the aforesaid words uttered by
the accused were totally false and without any foundation or
occasion for it. The accused willfully and consciously made the said
imputation concerning the complainant intending to harm or
knowing or having a reason to believe that such imputation will
harm the reputation of the complainant, particularly when the latter
was the conduct of the accused, in uttering the words quoted above

has lowered the reputation of the complainant in the eyes and


estimation of the general public and large circle of her friends and
acquaintances. The accused has absolutely no justification to utter
the above quoted words.
j. The complainant further states that the complainant is in bollywood
evidently because of her good acting, the accused are well aware
that the complainant started her career as an actress in daily soaps
and thereafter gaining popularity on small screen, the complainant
got her break in bollywood with her talent and efforts.
k.

The complainant further states that the interview conducted by


BCC news on dated 19th December 2015, was broadcasted at 9.00
p.m. on same day. In the said interview the accused was asked
about the review of complainants new movie namely KARMA. In
that interview, instead of giving precise review on complainants
movie, the accused reviewed the complainants acting, with
the view to tarnish the complainants image in public, which
was not the prerogative of the accused.

l. The complainant further states that it is needless to over emphasis


and it is evident that the said statement was made by the accused
with the view to defame and destroy the reputation of complainant.
The said statement is baseless, scandalous and per se defamatory.
m. The complainant further states that due to defamatory statement
made by the accused the complainants image in public has
been ruined and because of this the complainant has lost her
upcoming

movies

which

were

already

signed

by

the

complainant.
n. The complainant further states that due to the defamatory
statement made by the accused the complainant suffered a huge
loss which cannot be compensated in terms of money. The various
allegations made by the accused against the complainant have no
substance and the accused has made such allegation on air just to

give mental and physical harassment to the complainant. The


complainant was grievously affected due to the defamatory
statement made by the accused.
4.

The complainant further states that prior to filing of this complaint the
complainant had issued show cause defamation notice through her
advocate on date 22/12/2015 pointing out the above said false
statement and demanding an unconditional apology, expressing
regret over receiving the said notice. Despite receiving the said
notice, there was no reply from the accused. The accused was also
directed to withdraw his statement with an apology within 15 days
from the receipt of the said show cause notice. But the accused has
failed and neglected to give reply on the same. (Here to annexed and
marked Exhibit A is the copy of show cause notice of defamation for
your ready reference)

5. The complainant further states that as the accused has failed and
neglected to give reply of the said show cause notice of defamation, the
complainant has no other alternative but to file the present complainant.
6. The complainant is relied upon the case of Madras High Court namely:

JJayalalitha Vs. Arcot N. Veerasamy


on 30th April, 1997
Bench: M. Karpagavinayagam
The said case was fought through power of attorney agent Mr.
V S SETHURRAMAN for complainant. It was held in this case, the
accused made defamatory statement against the petitioner. The said
statement was made to tarnish petitioners image in public. To this
effect,

the

petitioner

has

also

sent

lawyers

notice

to

respondent/accused pointing the aforesaid false statement and


demanding unconditional apology expressing regret on receipt of
said notice.

(Here to annexed and marked Exhibit B the copy of said order


dated 30th April, 1997)

7. The complainant further states that the accused has also violated Article
19(g) and Article 21 of Constitution of India, Article 19 (g) states that To
practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or
business and Article 21 states that Protection of life and Liberty
The Accused hereby by defaming the complainant by saying that the
complainant has to quit acting, itself shows that there is violation of Article
19 (g) and Article 21. Hence the accused cannot ask the complainant to
quit acting.
8. The complainant has not filed any other appeal, application and a writ
petition and/or involving the subject matter of this petition either before this
court or before Honble High Court/ Supreme Court of India.
9. The complainant further states that the complainant is residing at the
address given in the cause title situated at Andheri, Mumbai and the
interview was also telecasted through office of BCC news situated at
Andheri, Mumbai. The respondent/accused also resides in Mumbai,
therefore this Honble court has absolute jurisdiction to entertain the said
complaint.
10. The complainant will rely upon document, list thereof is annexed thereto.

11. The complainant declares that this complaint is not barred by law of
limitation or latches.

12. The complainant is approaching this Honble court as expeditiously as


possible and there is no delay.

13. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances the complainant therefore
prays:

a. This Honorable Court be pleased to issue process against the


accused persons above named under section 500 of IPC as
amended and be strictly dealt with according to the provisions of
law.

b. That leaves to add, alter, or amend the complaint as the


circumstances of the case may require.

c. Any other and further order as this court may deem fit and proper.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS AND JUSTICE I SHALL REMAIN DUTY
BOUND TO PRAY EVER.

Mumbai
Dated: 20th January 2016

Advocate for Complainant

Complainant

VERIFICATION
I,

MISS.

ESHA

DHARMENDRA

BHADURI,

complainant,

abovenamed, do hereby solemnly declare and state that whatever stated


in the foregoing paras are true and correct to the best of my knowledge
and belief.

Solemnly affirmed at Mumbai,


On this 20 th day of January, 2016

)
)

Identified & Explained by me;

Advocate for Complainant

Complainant

IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE


66thCOURT AT ANDHERI, MUMBAI
CASE NO.

/2015

MISS. ESHA DHARMENDRA BHADURI


.Complainant
Versus
MR. RONIE SUNIL SHINDE
. Accused

LIST OF WITNESSES
1.

Complainant

2.

Any other witness with permission of this Honble Court.

Advocate for Complainant.

Complainant

IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE


66th COURT AT ANDHERI, MUMBAI
CASE NO.

/2015

MISS. ESHA DHARMENDRA BHADURI


.Complainant
Versus
MR. RONIE SUNIL SHINDE
. Accused

INDEX
Sl. No.
01.
02.
03.
04.
05.
06.

Particulars

Page No.

Roznama
Complaint
Verification
Supporting Affidavit Of The Complainant
List of Document
Exhibit A is the copy of Legal Notice dated

07.

22/12/2015
Exhibit B

08.
09.

30/04/1997
List of Witness
Vakalatnama

is

the

copy of

order

dated

Mumbai
Dated 20th January 2016

Advocate for Complainant

Complainant

IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE


66th COURT AT ANDHERI, MUMBAI
CASE NO.

/2015

MISS. ESHA DHARMENDRA BHADURI


.Complainant
Versus
MR. RONIE SUNIL SHINDE
. Accused

LIST OF DOCUMENT

Sl. No.
01.

Particulars
Page No.
Exhibit A is the copy of Legal Notice dated
22/12/2015

02.

Exhibit

is

the

copy of

order

dated

30/04/1997

Mumbai
Dated :20th January 2016

Advocate for Complainant

Complainant

IN THE COURT OF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
66thCOURT AT ANDHERI, MUMBAI
CASE NO.

/2015

MISS. ESHA DHARMENDRA BHADURI


.. COMPLAINANT
Versus

MR. RONIE SUNIL SHINDE


.. ACCUSED

Dated this 20thday of January, 2016

**************************************************

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS


500 OF I.P.C.

**********************************************

Hiral Thakkar / Neelam Chheda


Advocates, High Court, Bombay
Shop No. 33, BASS 004442,
Opp: Building No. 180,
Kannamwar Nagar 2,
Vikhroli (E), MUMBAI 400 083
Phone : 022 2577 0518

IN THE COURT OF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
66thCOURT AT ANDHERI, MUMBAI

CASE NO.

/2015

MISS. ESHA DHARMENDRA BHADURI


.. COMPLAINANT
Versus

MR. RONIE SUNIL SHINDE


.. ACCUSED

Dated this 20th day of January, 2016

**************************************************

VAKALATNAMA

**********************************************

Hiral Thakkar / Neelam Chheda


Advocates, High Court, Bombay
Shop No. 33, BASS 004442,
Opp: Building No. 180,
Kannamwar Nagar 2,
Vikhroli (E), MUMBAI 400 083
Phone : 022 2577 0518

I / We / are not a member/s of the Advocates Welfare Fund. Therefore, Stamps of


Rs.2/- is / are / not affixed herewith. N.B. :- Strike out which is Not Applicable.

Advocate Signature
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
66th COURT AT ANDHERI, MUMBAI
CASE NO.

/2015

MISS. ESHA DHARMENDRA BHADURI


.Complainant
Versus
MR. RONIE SUNIL SHINDE
. Accused

VAKALATNAMA
I,MISS. ESHA DHARMENDRA BHADURI Indian Inhabitants of Mumbai,
the above named hereby appoint HiralThakkar / NeelamChhedaAdvocate/s
High Court, Mumbai, to act, appear and plead for me / us in the above matter.

In witness where of I/ We have set my / our hand/s to this writing.


Date this 20th day of January, 2016
Accepted :

Hiral Thakkar / Neelam Chheda


Advocates, High Court, Bombay
Shop No. 33, BASS 004442,
Opp: Building No. 180,
Kannamwar Nagar 2,
Vikhroli (East),
MUMBAI 400 083
Complainant/ Applicant

ROZNAMA
Date

Particular

Remark

IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE


66th COURT AT ANDHERI, MUMBAI
CASE NO.

/2015

IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE


66th COURT AT ANDHERI, MUMBAI
CASE NO.

/2015

MISS. ESHA DHARMENDRA BHADURI


.Complainant
Versus
MR. RONIE SUNIL SHINDE
. Accused

AFFIDAVIT OF THE COMPLAINANTABOVE


NAMED IN LIUE OF COMPLAINT.

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR:-

I, MISS. ESHA DHARMENDRA BHADURI, the complainant above


named, aged about 28 years, occupation- Actress, Residing at D 403,
Mahalaxmi Palace, Near Old Building No. 11, Andheri West, Mumbai 400 063
do hereby state on solemn affirmation as under-

1) I say that I have filed above complaint of defamation under Sec. 500 of
Indian Penal Code, against above named Accused.

2) I further say that the I am film actress by profession and the accused is
critics by profession.

3) I say that, the incidences narrated in para no. 1 to 16 within my knowledge


and same was true and correct.

4) I say that, contents made in para no. 17 to 23 are legal submissions and I
believe the same to be true.

5) I say that, I have relied on certain documents and copy of same in


annexed to the petition and the original are in my custody.

6) I say that, I am making this affidavit in support of my complaint and I am


aware of the reliefs prayed by me.

7) I repeat, reiterate and confirm the contents of this affidavit.

8) I have signed the complaint and affidavit with free consent. There is no
any force or pressure on me to present the petition and to file the affidavit,

Solemnly affirmed at Mumbai

This 20thday of January, 2016

Complainant
Identified by me,

Advocate for Complainant

Beforeme

IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE


66th COURT AT ANDHERI, MUMBAI
CASE NO.

/2015

MISS. ESHA DHARMENDRA BHADURI


An adult, aged about 28 Years,

]
]

Indian Inhabitant,

Residing at D 403, Mahalaxmi Palace,


Near Old Building No. 11,
Andheri (West), Mumbai -400 063

]
]
]

Complainant

Versus
MR. RONIE SUNIL SHINDE

An adult, aged about 35 years,

Indian Inhabitant
]
Residing at B 504, Shine Apartment,Shristi ]
Complex,Peddar Road,

Mumbai- 400 032

]
Accused

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 500 OF I.P.C.

Prepared by:ROLL

NAME

NO.
09

CHHEDA NEELAM PANKAJ (Complainant)

47

PAREKH ANUSHA ASHOK (Accused)

56

RANADE SUKANYA VINAY (Accused)

77

THAKKAR HIRAL JITENDRA (Complainant)