IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 16.06.2017 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN Crl.O.P.No.23912 of 2012 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2012 N.Padmanabha .. Petitioner Vs Shiv Kumar .. Respondent PRAYER: Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records in C.C.No.2589 of 2012 pending on the file of the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate at Egmore, Chennai and quash the proceedings as against the petitioner/accused.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.D.Venkateswaran For Respondent : Mr.A.Sirajudeen, Senior Counsel for Mr.R.Rajamani ORDER This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the proceedings initiated under Section 200 Cr.P.C. for an alleged offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner, who has been arrayed as accused, in the complaint in C.C.No.2589 of 2012 on the file of the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.
2. The petitioner is the accused and the respondent is the complainant.
3. The case as narrated in the complaint is as under: The respondent accused offered to let out premises, owned by his wife, for running of restaurant by the complainant. Pursuant to the same, the respondent/complainant and the wife of the petitioner/accused entered in to a rental agreement dated 19.3.2012 and renovated vacant possession was to be handed over to the respondent/complainant on or before 25.3.2012. It is stated that the respondent/complainant had paid Rs.10,75,000/- towards advance and renovation works, but the petitioner/accused and his wife did not carry out the renovation works. Therefore, the respondent/complainant sent a telegram on 27.4.2012 to the wife of the petitioner/accused informing the termination of rental agreement and seeking return of the payment made by the respondent/complainant.
4. It is stated that the petitioner/accused with a view to escape from the legal consequences, lodged a false complaint against the respondent/complainant and according to the respondent/ complainant the allegations contained in the said complaint lodged by the petitioner/accused are defamatory in nature. Therefore, the respondent/complainant filed the complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C against the petitioner/accused alleging that the complaint lodged tarnished the reputation of the respondent/complainant and, therefore, the petitioner/accused had committed an offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. I heard Mr.S.D.Venkateswaran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.Sirajudeen, learned Senior Counsel for M/s.R.Rajamani, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the documents available on record.
6. It is seen from the records that the complaint dated 30.4.2012 lodged by the respondent/accused is as under:
“We Feel and doubt the character of Shiva Kumar is not honest law biding person.
Further, we wish to mention two things about him, he is misusing the PRESS sticker on his Jipsy van, photos of some Judges honouring him, calling himself a Journalist and written of stories”.
7. For constituting an offence under Section 499 punishable under Section 500 IPC publication of the defamatory material being a sine qua non, it would be a very risky proposition for the Courts to take the view that a complaint lodged by the petitioner/accused to the police would amount to publication. Various allegations are usually and commonly levelled in such complaints. Publication is entirely different than merely lodging a complaint by the petitioner/accused.
8. In my considered opinion, by no stretch of imagination it could be said that prima facie offence under Section 500 of Indian Penal Code has been made out. It appears that the subsequent complaint, which is under challenge in this proceedings, is launched by respondent/complainant only with a view to give counter blast to the prosecution launched against him by the petitioner/accused. That apart, with regard to cancellation of rental agreement and return of the money paid already proceedings are pending between the parties.
9. In such view of the matter, it is not possible to accept that there is a material to show that the petitioner/accused had made any imputation concerning the respondent/complainant intending to harm or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of the respondent/complainant within the meaning of section 499 of Indian Penal Code.
For the foregoing reasons, this petition is allowed and the complaint in C.C.No.2589 of 2012 on the file of the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai is quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
16.06.2017 Note:Issue order copy on 11.03.2019 vs Index : Yes To The XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.
M.V.MURALIDARAN, J.
vs CRL.OP.No.23912 of 2012 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2012 16.06.2017