Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 390 (MAD)

J. Chellappa v. J. Selvaraja

2002-04-29

M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM

body2002
Judgment : 1. A complaint under Section 500, I.P.C. was filed by Selvaraja, the first respondent herein, against Chellappa, the Chief Manager M/s.SPIC Ltd., Chennai, the petitioner herein, and another. The petitioner (A2), on receipt of summons, filed an application for discharge. After enquiry in the said application, the trial Court discharged the petitioner (A2). Challenging the same, the first respondent filed a revision before the Sessions Court, which, in turn, allowed the same. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case by the petitioner (A2). 2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows:- (a) Selvaraja, the complainant, was working as Personal Assistant in SPIC Ltd., Madras. A branch of the Bank of India is situate in the same building in which the SPIC Ltd. is situate. The complainant has got a saving bank account with the Bank of India. Since the complainant in his saving bank account had overdrawn to the extent of Rs.2,322/-, Suresh Kumar (A1), the Chief Manager, Bank of India, the second respondent herein, wrote a letter on 15.11.1995 addressed to the General Manager of SPIC Ltd. informing him about the dues of the complainant and requesting the company to help them in recovering the said amount. The General Manager, SPIC Ltd., forwarded the same to the Chief Manager, SPIC Ltd., the petitioner herein. (b) On18.11.1995, the petitioner (A2) sent a copy of the said letter to the complainant with a covering letter in a closed cover informing the complainant that the letter sent by the Bank of India, which is self-explanatory, for his information and necessary action. On receipt of the said letter, the first respondent/complainant filed a complaint against both the Chief Manager, Bank of India, the second respondent herein, for having sent the letter to SPIC Ltd. and the Chief Manager, SPIC Ltd., the petitioner herein for having forwarded the said letter to the complainant for the offence under Section 500 r/s. 34 I.P.C. (d) After taking sworn statement, the case was taken on file against both the accused for the offence under Section 500,I.P.C. On receipt of summons, the petitioner (A2) filed an application under Section 258, Cr.P.C. for discharge. Accordingly, the trial Court, after hearing the counsel for the parties, discharged the petitioner (A2) on 4.11.1996. Accordingly, the trial Court, after hearing the counsel for the parties, discharged the petitioner (A2) on 4.11.1996. The said order was challenged by the complainant before the Revision court and the same was allowed on 16.6.1999 holding that the ground urged by the petitioner (A2) for discharge is a matter to be dealt with by the trial Court only during the course of trial. The said order is the subject matter of challenge before this Court in this revision. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent. 4. On careful consideration of the order passed by the Sessions Court as well as the trial Court and on perusal of the entire records, I am of the view that the order of the Sessions Court has to be set aside and the order of the trial Court has to be sustained on two grounds. 5. Firstly, in the complaint, there is no specific allegation against the petitioner (A2) that he has sent any letter containing defamatory allegation. Even according to the complainant, the petitioner (A2) has simply forwarded the letter sent by the Chief Manager of Bank of India to M/s.SPIC Ltd. to the complainant intimating about the overdrawn dues to be paid by him. 6. The reading of the entire complaint would indicate that there are allegations only against the Bank Manager for having sent the letter to the company about the dues, even though the dues had already been cleared. The only allegation contained in para 23 of the complaint is that the petitioner (A2), instead of sending back the letter to the Bank Manager, himself entertained the same and chose to forward the said letter to the complainant and put the letter in the personal file of the complainant and thereby, abetted the offence punishment under Section 500,I.P.C. 7. These wordings in the complaint would clearly show that there is no allegation that the petitioner committed the offence under Section 500,I.P.C. As indicated above, when the complaint was filed for the offence under Section 500 r/w. 34 I.P.C., the same was taken on file for the offence under Section 500, I.P.C. alone and therefore, the allegation contained in the complaint would not make out the offence under Section 500,I.P.C. as far as the petitioner (A2) is concerned. 8. 8. Secondly, even according to the complaint, the letter sent by the Bank Manager to M/s.SPIC Ltd. was merely forwarded by the petitioner to the complainant with a covering letter. The said covering letter was only addressed to the complainant and it was not intended for others. Therefore, the main ingredient, namely, publication is absent for constituting the offence under Section 500,I.P.C. 9. On the above reasonings, I am of the view that the proceedings as against the petitioner (A2) are liable to be dropped and as such, the order of the Sessions Court setting aside the order of the trial Court is set aside. The only mistake committed by the trial Court is that instead of invoking Section 204, Cr.P.C. to drop the proceedings, it has invoked Section 258, Cr.P.C., which would relate to stopping of proceedings. 10. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. Consequently, Crl.M.P.No.5801 of 1999 is closed.