Retired Colonel Prevails in 8-Year Legal Battle: Court Sentences 76-Year-Old Neighbor over False FIR in Parking Dispute

In Gurugram, Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Anil Kumar Yadav rendered a verdict on November 9, sentencing Ms. Malti Bhatnagar, aged 76, to a nine-month term of imprisonment and imposing a fine of Rs 1,000. This judgment, pronounced within the precincts of the district court complex’s parking lot, was necessitated by Ms. Bhatnagar’s physical incapacity to appear in court due to a recent knee surgery.

The conviction was predicated upon Ms. Bhatnagar’s culpability under Section 500 (defamation) of the Indian Penal Code. Acknowledging the defendant’s advanced age as the sole mitigating factor, the court deemed it judicious to impose a sentence of nine months of imprisonment along with a fine of Rs 1,000. An interim bail, extending until December 8, was concurrently granted to afford Ms. Bhatnagar the opportunity to seek appellate recourse before a higher judicial authority.

The protracted discord between Ms. Bhatnagar and Colonel Subhash Chander Talwar, an octogenarian resident, emanated from a parking dispute within the Ambience Island Lagoon Apartments, Gurugram, dating back to 2015. Noteworthy legal precedents include the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s annulment of Ms. Bhatnagar’s prior First Information Report (FIR) against Colonel Talwar in January 2020. Additionally, a civil court adjudicated in favor of Colonel Talwar in January 2023, directing Ms. Bhatnagar to remit Rs 10 lakh in damages.

The genesis of the discord is traced to a real estate transaction wherein a portion of the parking area was conveyed to Ms. Bhatnagar’s husband. Subsequent disputes, notably allegations of intentional vehicular obstruction causing inconvenience, culminated in a criminal complaint filed by Colonel Talwar on February 2, 2016.

The complainant, Colonel Subhash Chander Talwar, alleged that the accused disseminated defamatory content against him within the residential colony’s WhatsApp group. Detailing the incident, Talwar stated, “On 18 October, exchanges occurred between the complainant and the accused, during which the accused employed abusive language. Subsequently, defamatory and insulting messages targeting the complainant were disseminated in the society’s WhatsApp group, with the evident intention of widespread circulation to the public, thereby besmirching my reputation,” as delineated in his criminal complaint.

Following this, on 2 November, 2015, Talwar dispatched a legal notice to Ms. Bhatnagar, seeking redress for the alleged defamation.

In response, Bhatnagar refrained from replying to Talwar’s notice but, on 8 November, initiated what Talwar characterizes as a “false FIR” against him. The FIR, filed at the women’s Police Station in Sector 51, Gurugram, invoked Sections 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage modesty), 354 A (unwelcome and explicit sexual behavior), 354B (assaults or use of criminal force on any woman with the intention of disrobing), 506 (criminal intimidation), 509 (sexual harassment by a relative), and 294 (sing, recite or utter any obscene song) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

While the case was still under consideration in the Gurugram court, Talwar sought relief from the high court on 11 March, 2016, seeking the quashing of the FIR. In a decision rendered on 29 January, 2020, the high court ruled that a scrutiny of the FIR failed to disclose any criminal offense, leading to the quashing of the FIR.