This petition has been filed by the petitioner to call for the records in C.C.No.8649 of 2007 on the file of the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai-600 001 and quash the same.
2. The respondent/complainant has filed C.C.No.8649 of 2007 against the petitioner/accused for an alleged offence under
Section 500 IPC. The ingredients of the complaint is as follows:-
The complainant is a public limited company, and it was originally incorporated as "Surana Metals and Steels India Ltd. It was conducting business of manufacturing and trading of all varieties of steel, for construction and infrastructure activities. The name of the complainant company was changed as "Surana Industries Ltd" on 05.02.2002. The company in order to expand its business intended to set up an Integrated Steel Complex at Raichur, State of Karnataka. The Government of Karnataka had approved its proposal and allotted the required land to start industry.
3. The complainant further alleged that the accused while so had lodged a false complaint, with the Commissioner of Police, Chennai, against Dineshchand Surana, the Managing Director of the complainant, linking him with another company M/s. Surana Corporation Ltd. He had levelled charges of cheating, Criminal intimidation etc., against him. The latter is neither a Director of Surana Corporation Ltd, nor is he involved in the administration of Surana Corporation Ltd, in any way. The complainant further alleges that the complainant company proposed to go for a public issue for nearly 300 Crores to finance the proposed Integrated Steel Project at Raichur. The impugned communication and the complaint to the police stated supra had adversely affected the image of the company. The accused had sent a communication dated 31.03.2006, containing false and libellous allegations against the complainant's company, to the Registrar of Companies, Bangalore and the copies were marked to 12 persons, including the Governor of Karnataka, Industrial Secretary of Karnataka Government, Karnataka Industrial Development Board, Bangalore.
4. The averment in the communication of the petitioner dated 31.03.2006 that the "integrity and genuineness" of the affairs and activities of the company are under judicial scanner is not true. It is admitted that an First Information Report is registered against Dineshchand Surana and eight others in their personal capacity and not as Directors of any company much less the complainant company. Neither Surana Corporation Ltd, nor Surana Industries Ltd, is figuring as an accused in the First Information Report stated above. 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.10,00,00,000/- (Rupees ten 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 its honour. The accused had sent a reply dated 16.05.2006 through his counsel, with false allegations which are defamatory. Hence, the complainant has lodged this complaint before the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai and the same has been taken on file as C.C.No.8649 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 five witnesses and enclosed three 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 close relative of the respondent and sub-agent of the Surana Corporation Limited. Through him, the petitioner took part in the said business. In the said business, the petitioner has invested a sum of Rs.4.65 crores, through the sub agent of the Surana Corporation Ltd.
8. On a tip off, the petitioner closed his account with the sub agent of the Surana Corporation Ltd., 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 sub-agent of Surana Corporation Ltd, Mr.Goutham raj Surana, the Chairman of both compnaies, Vijayraj Surana, one of the Director of Surana Corporation Ltd, along with the respondent 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.8649 of 2007 on the file of the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai-600 001 cannot be quashed and it has to be tried before the learned Magistrate. Therefore, this Court directs the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai-600 001, 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 VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai-600 001.
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras