This petition has been filed by the petitioner to call for the records in C.C.No.2744 of 2007 on the file of the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai-8 and quash the same.
2. The respondent/complainant has filed C.C.No.2744 of 2007 against the petitioner/accused for an alleged offence under
Section 500 IPC. The ingredients of the complaint is as follows:-
The complainant/one Mr. Vijayraj Surana is Managing Director for M/s. Surana Corporation Ltd., which is a public Limited Company, lending finance to vehicles on hire purchase basis. Subsequently, the Company's name has been changed as M/s. Surana Finance Corporation (India) Ltd. The company stopped hire purchase/leasing business and switched over to carry on jewellery business of gold bullion, silver and precious stones, and changed the name of the company as M/s.Surana Corporation Ltd. The same was registered under the Companies Registration Act. After that, M/s. Rukma Industries Ltd and Surana Jewellery Ltd, expressed their desire for a merger with Ms/. Surana Corporation Ltd. Accordingly, they applied before the Honourable High Court, Madras for the scheme of amalgamation. The Honourable High Court has also ordered the scheme of amalgamation by order dated 07.07.2004. Thus, the company is carrying on business of gold bullion, silver jewellery ornaments, gems, stones etc. The complainant's company has a very successful business.
3. The complainant submits that the authorised share capital of M/s. Surana Corporation Ltd, is 21 crores divided into 2,10,00,000 equity shares of Rs.10/- each. The company had gained the trust and confidence of the public from its inception and is doing a fairly good job. There is proposal to declare dividend in the current year as the company's merger took place in the end of the year 2004. The accused, Mr.C.Kishanlal had known one Mr.Dharmendra Bafna of Madras, who has been engaged in trading activities in gold bullion, silver with the complainant's company, M/s. Surana Corporation Ltd. The accused knowing about the said business activities of Mr.Dharmendra Bafna has expressed his intention to do trading activity in gold bullion and silver. In the course of trading activities in gold bullion and silver, the accused suffered a loss and he owes money to the above said Dharmendra Bafna. It is further alleged that to overcome the loss and the demand of amount due to Dharmendra Bafna, the accused gave a false complaint to the Commissioner of Police, Chennai, against Dharmendra Bafna and 8 others including the Directors of the complainant ie., M/s. Surana Corporation Ltd. The complainant has alleged that the accused had no dealings or any connection whatsoever with the complainant nor has any interest in the company. The complainant submits that the accused had sent a communication, containing false and libellous allegations against M/s.Surana Corporation Ltd, to Multi Commodity Exchange of India Limited in which the company is a member. Therein the accused had alleged cheating with false promises and so a police complaint against all the Directors of M/s. Surana Corporation Ltd was lodged in Chennai. Thus the accused gave a complaint containing totally false allegations, which are per se defamatory. Pursuant to the complaint of the accused, the Multi Commodity Exchange of India Limited had called for explanation in its letter dated 21.04.2006 from M/s. Surana Corporation Ltd. Similarly the accused had also forwarded a complaint to the Registrar of Companies, Tamil Nadu, Chennai, alleging that the company and its Directors have induced him to invest in the company and he invested a sum of Rs.4,65,00,000/- and agreed to register a charge for that amount in favour of them. The Registrar of Companies, Tamil Nadu had also called for explanation from M/s. Surara Corporation Ltd, by its letter dated 25.05.2006.
4. Further, the complainant states that a First Information Report is registered by the investigating agency and no final report has been filed. The complaint is forwarded only with a view to prejudice the authorities and tarnish the image of the complainant.
5. The complainant further states that as the allegations were per se defamatory, and the same had harmed his reputation, the accused had committed an offence punishable under
Section 500 IPC.
6. The complainant had issued a notice on 06.05.2006 to the accused demanding unconditional apology and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,00,000/- (Rupees two crores only) within a week from the date of receipt of notice, failing which the complainant had stated that he would launch appropriate proceedings to vindicate his honour. The accused had sent a reply dated 16.05.2006 with false allegations which are defamatory through his counsel. Hence, the complainant has lodged this complaint before the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore and the same has been taken on file as C.C.No.2744 of 2007 under
Section 200 Cr.P.C for an offence punishable under
Section 500 IPC, by the learned Magistrate. In support of the complainant's case, he has mentioned four witnesses and enclosed five documents.
7. Challenging the complaint, the petitioner has filed the above Criminal Original Petition to quash the case of the respondent herein. The respondent has alleged that the petitioner has sent a communication on 31.03.2006 containing false and libellous allegations against the complainant's company, to the Registrar of Companies, Bangalore and that the copies were marked to 12 persons, including the Governor of Karnataka, Industrial Secretary of Karnataka Government, Karnataka Industrial Development Board, Bangalore. The petitioner has categorically admitted the business activities of the respondent. The petitioner submitted that the said Dharmendra Bafna is the son-in-law of the respondent and sub-agent of the company. Through him, the petitioner took part in the said business. The respondent and his son-in-law boasts that they are doing trading activity in the business. In the said business, the petitioner has invested a sum of Rs.4.65 crores, through the sub agent/son-in-law of the respondent company directors, namely, Mr.G.R.Surana and Vijayraj Surana.
8. On a tip of, the petitioner closed his account with the sub agent of the company on 02.12.2005 and the sub-agent had duly signed in the diary that the petitioner has 4.95 crores (4.65 crores capital and 30 lakhs profit) account balance and asked the petitioner to meet the directors of the respondent company on 10.12.2005 to collect the money, when the petitioner went to Surana Corporation Ltd, the respondent and Directors of Company and their men put the petitioner inside the office and claimed Rs.2 crores from him, being loss to the company. The same was clarified by the petitioner. Immediately, all the respondents jointly threatened him. The petitioner lodged a complaint with the City Commissioner of Police on 30.12.2005. Subsequently, case was registered in Crime No.60 of 2006 on an alleged offence under
Sections 406,409,420 and
506(ii) r/w. 120(b) IPC. Immediately, the respondent and others moved bail before this Hon'ble Court.
9. The petitioner has alleged that this act of the respondent clearly shows they have conspired to commit fraud. The petitioner has alleged that the respondent has filed this case with ulterior motive because the petitioner has filed a criminal case with the police against the respondent. Further, the petitioner pointed out that the dispute which arose between the respondent company directors and himself is only on the basis of business transactions. So, to invoke
Section 500 IPC is not maintainable. Further, the petitioner pointed out that regarding this dispute a civil suit in C.S.No.200 of 2006 is pending in this Court. The petitioner further contended that the respondent has not pointed out any imputations which lowered down the reputation of the respondent. In the said representation to the various authorities by the petitioner, a disclosure about what had been the dispute and the facts of the case was only said and no defamatory statements were made against the respondent. Further, the petitioner has alleged that he has taken legal steps to safeguard his right and such an act cannot be termed as defamation.
10. Considering the contentions of the complainant and the petitioner and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsels for the respective parties, and perusal of the documents presented by both sides, the Court is of the view that the dispute arose on the basis of the business transactions between the petitioner and the respondent. The petitioner's representation dated 31.03.2006, sent to various government officials and elected representatives of the people, has narrated the dispute between the parties. Further, the Criminal and Civil Case between the parties on the same cause of action are also pending before the Hon'ble High Court and City Civil Court. As such the C.C.No.2744 of 2007 on the file of the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai-8 cannot be quashed and it has to be tried before the learned Magistrate. Hence, this Court directs the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai-8, to dispose the case, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
11. With the above observation, the Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
mra To
1. The XIV Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai-8.
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras