IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

66th COURT AT ANDHERI, MUMBAI

CASE NO.

/2015

MISS. ESHA DHARMENDRA

BHADURI

An adult, age 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

REPLY ON BEHALF OF
ACCUSED ABOVE NAMED

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR:

I MR. RONIE SUNIL SHINDE, the Accused abovenamed do hereby state,

declare and submit on solemn affirmation as under:

1. At the outset, the Accused states that the above mentioned Complaint filed
by Complainant u/s 500 of IPC. In the said Complaint allegations made
against accused are totally false, fabricated, and vexatious in nature. There is
no merit in the Complaint and Accused do, hereby, strongly protests that the
allegations made in the Complaint are implied to be denied unless expressly
admitted by the Accused. Without prejudice to the abovesaid contents of the
Complaint the Accused files his para wise reply:
a. With reference to para No.1 & 2 of the Complaint, the contents thereof
are true and correct. The Accused being a film critic by profession
reviews movies which ultimately leads him to keep updates about actors
and actresses.
b. With reference to para No. 3 of the complaint the allegation made by the
complainant are false, baseless, imaginary and incorrect.
c. With reference to para 3 clause (a) to (e) of the Complaint, the contents
thereof are true and correct. However the accused further states that the
story line of the movie KAAL was so intriguing that the performances
of all the actors were applauded for their acting.

d. With reference to para No.3 clause (f) and (g) Accused states that the
contents thereof are true and correct to his knowledge. The Accused
further states that, on dated 19th December, 2015 an interview was
conducted at the Office of BCC News Channel, situated at Poonam
Chamber, R. N. Paskal Road, Andheri, which was broadcasted at 9.00 pm
which being prime hour and thus, bound to be viewed by large number of
audiences, wherein the Accused was requested to review the
Complainant's new movie by the Complainant's movie production house
in order to garner publicity for the Complainant's movie.

e. With reference to para 3 clause (h) of the Complaint the Accused

expressly denies the allegations and maintains that his review was solely
on the context of the movie and that the Complainant is trying to hype
the situation in her favor to gain sympathy from the viewers. The
Accused further states that, there was no defamatory statement per se as
the Accused was performing his job as a critic to review the
Complainant's movie. The Accused expressly denies the contents of the
paragraph 9 of the Complaint and put the Complainant to give strict proof
thereof.

f. With reference to para 3 clause (i) of the Complaint, the Accused states
that under "Jeremy J. Diermeier & Anr V/s State of West Bengal &
Anr", defamation is defined under explanation 4 as "no imputation is
said to harm a person's reputation unless that imputation directly or
indirectly lowers the character of the person in respect of his caste or
his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, in the estimation of
others or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a
loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful." The
Accused further states that, he is relying on the above definition and there
was no malice intention and the Accuseds review was in capacity of his
work and that the Accused has not made any defamatory statement and
that there was no intention to ruin or jeopardize the Complainant's
reputation. The Complainant is making a huge cry out of a petty issue in
order to harass the Accused and to gain publicity.

g. With reference to para 3 clause (j) of the Complaint the Accused states
that, Accused has not made any comments on the Complainant's career
and has no concern about the same.

h. With reference to para 3 clause (k) of the Complaint, the Accused states
that, Article 19 of the Constitution of India confers on all citizens the
right to freedom of speech and expression and the review made by the
Accused was under his Fundamental Right and has no intention to harm
sentiments of the Complainant. The accused further states that he has not
made any defamatory statement and the complainant is twisting the
words of the accused, to seek viewers attention and gain sympathy and it
is the gimmick of the complainant to stay in news.

i. With reference to para 3 clause (l) of the Complaint the contents thereof
are false, frivolous, vexatious and incorrect. As per New York
Times v. Sullivan (1964) is a significant United States Supreme
Court case which held that the court must find evidence of actual malice
before it can hold the press guilty for defamation and libel against a
public figure. This was a landmark Supreme Court decision regarding
freedom of the press.The Accused further states that, the Complainant is
trying to gain publicity and misguiding the court under the pretext of
defamation and Complainant should give strict proof thereof.

j. With reference to para 3 clause (m) of the Complaint, the allegations

made in the said para are totally false, frivolous and baseless. The
accused further states that the complainant is concocting her own story to

generate publicity for herself and that the viewers sympathies with her
and thereof the accused ask strict proof thereof.

k. With reference to para 3 clause (n) of the Complaint, the Accused states
that, U/S 499 of IPC Exception 6 states that, "It is not defamation to
express in good faith any opinion respecting the merits of any
performance which its author submitted to the judgment of the public
or respecting the character of author so far as his character appears in
such performance and no further." The Accused states that, the Accused
is covered under the abovesaid exception that he was requested by the
producers of the movie to give his opinion and he gave his view within
the capacity of his work and in good faith.

l. With reference to para No. 4 , 5,and 6 of the Complaint, Accused states

that the Accused was not in Mumbai when the notice was delivered and
after returning back to Mumbai, the Accused received Summons from
Court. The Accused further states that the complainant is portraying the
words of the Accused in a bad light and that the Accused had no malice
intention to defame the Complainant. On the contrary, the Complainant is
hampering with Accusers career by presenting him in this way and
tarnishing his career. The Accused further states that he was not made any
defamatory statement and thus there is no requirement of an apology.

m. With reference to para 7 contents thereof are false, frivolous and

baseless. The Accused has not voiced or forced the Complainant in any
way or gesture and that the Complainant is making baseless allegations .

The Complainant is at liberty to live her life in her own way and that the
Complainant is already pursuing the career of her own choice. The
Accused further states that the Complainants personal liberty is not at all
harmed as she is not restricted from doing any deeds or actions. On the
contrary, the Complainant is harassing the Accused and tarnishing his
career by accusing on such baseless allegations.

2. The Accused states that the Complainant has portrayed the Accuseds words
in a very improper way and has taken undue advantage of the situation for
her personal gains. The Accused further states that the Complainant has
made a huge cry of a petty issue, intending to garner publicity for herself
and pretending to be aggrieved when in reality the Complainant is utilizing
the situation for her own benefits of staying in limelight of the viewers as
she is not offered any substantial roles and hence the Complainant is
stooping to such low standards to gain sympathy and garner publicity for
herself.
3. The Accused further states that, there is no merit in the Complaint and the
same deserves to be dismissed with heavy hand. The Accused is aggrieved at
the hands of the Complainant. The Complainant has made a huge cry of
petty issues and has gained sympathy and empathy and has tried to tarnish
the Accused's career. The Complainant has not come with clean hands and
trying to obtain order by misguiding this Hon'ble Court as such the
Complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed in Complaint and
therefore it deserved to be dismissed with heavy cost.

Mumbai
Dated: 20th January 2016

Advocate for Accused

Accused

V E R I FI CAT I O N

I, MR. RONIE SUNIL SHINDE, 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 Accused

Accused

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

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

VAK ALAT N AM A
**************************************

Anusha Parekh / Sukanya Ranade

Advocates, High Court, Bombay
Shop No. 2, Bellium House,
Next to Lucky Restaurant,
Santacruz East, MUMBAI 400 029

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

VAK ALAT N AM A
I, MR. RONIE SUNIL SHINDE Indian Inhabitants of Mumbai, the above named
hereby appoint Anusha Parekh / Sukanya Ranade Advocate/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 :

Anusha Parekh / Sukanya Ranade

Advocates, High Court, Bombay
Shop No. 2, Bellium House,
Next to Lucky Restaurant,
Santacruz East, MUMBAI 400 029
Accused