Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 4592 (MAD)

K. Renuka v. V. Rajamanickam

2012-11-06

B.RAJENDRAN

body2012
Judgment :- 1. The present Criminal revision case is filed as against the order dated 13.05.2004 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. V, Coimbatore in C.M.P. No. 10125 of 2003 in C.C. No. 728 of 2001, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. to include two more persons as accused 2 and 3 in C.C. No. 728 of 2001 was dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner was employed as an Assistant Inspector in the office of the Assistant Director, Internal Audit and she discharged her duties sincerely without giving any room for any complaint. The respondents were also working in the same office as Assistant Inspector, Deputy Inspector and Assistant Inspector respectively. Apart from this official position, the respondents are also holding the post of President and Treasurer in the Tamil Nadu Local Fund and Audit and Government Department Internal Audit Service Association, Coimbatore Unit. While so, on 19.02.2001, a notice was displayed in the notice board stating that the Association has passed a resolution against the petitoiner condemning her discharge of duties. The resolution was signed by all the three respondents. According to the petitioner, the resolution passed by the respondents is per se defamatory and thereby she was subjected to mental agony and irreparable hardship. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the complaint under Section 500 of Cr.P.C. against the respondents before the trial court. 3. On presentation of the complaint, the learned Judicial Magistrate No. V, Coimbatore, by order dated 20.09.2001, had taken cognisance only as against A-1 and held that no case has been made out against the other accused for launching criminal prosecution. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed a Criminal Revision Petition No. 199 of 2001 before the Principal District Court, Coimbatore and the same was dismissed on 30.07.2002. Thereafter, the trial Court recorded the evidence of the petitioner and the sole accused. At this juncture, the petitioner has filed the present C.M.P. No. 10125 of 2003 in C.C. No. 728 of 2001 under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. to include the respondents 2 and 3 herein also as accused and subject them to criminal prosecution. This petition was dismissed by this Court on 13.05.2004 against which the present Criminal Revision Petition is filed. 4. This petition was dismissed by this Court on 13.05.2004 against which the present Criminal Revision Petition is filed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitoiner would contend that the petitioner had filed a complaint under Section 500 of Cr.P.C. for defamation. Though originally he named all the three persons as accused in the complaint, the court below took cognisance of the complaint only as against one person, who was eventually arrayed as A-1 and framed charge only against A-1, leaving the two other persons from the purview of prosecution. There are enough evidence available for consideration of the Court below to conclude that the respondents 2 and 3 herein also have joined the first accused/first respondent herein in defaming the name and fame of the petitioner and therefore, the court below ought to have launched prosecution as against the A-2 and A-3. The reasons assigned by the court below for dismissal of the present application is that the earlier attempt made by the petitioner to challenge the order of the court below dated 20.09.2001 was affirmed by the appellate Court and therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to file the present petition under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. Thus, the trial court has not independently decided the averments contained in the petition filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. and only dismissed the petition on the ground that the Criminal Revision Case No. 199 of 2012 was dismissed by the Principal District Court, Coimbatore on 30.07.2002. 5. Though notice was served on the respondents 1 to 3 and their names have been printed in the cause list, there is no representation made on their behalf. The petitioner also, pursuant to the direction of this Court, effected paper publication in one issue of Tamil Daily 'Makkal Kural' on 15.07.2012 as substituted service to the respondents and inspite of the same, the respondents have not appeared before this Court either in person or through a pleader. 6. I heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials placed on record. When we analyse the evidence on record, it is seen that the petitioner had originally filed the complaint under Section 500 of Cr.P.C. as against the respondents 1 to 3 herein and prayed to proceed against them for defamation. 6. I heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials placed on record. When we analyse the evidence on record, it is seen that the petitioner had originally filed the complaint under Section 500 of Cr.P.C. as against the respondents 1 to 3 herein and prayed to proceed against them for defamation. The trial court, after analysing the materials on record, by order dated 20.09.2001, taken cognisance of the offence only as against A-1 and held that no case is made out for launching prosecution as against A-2 and A-3. Thus, the trial court thought it fit to proceed against the first accused alone for the alleged defamation committed by him. This order was chalenged by the petitioner by filing Crl.R.C. No. 199 of 2001 before the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore and the same was dismissed on 30.07.2002. Admittedly, this order dated 30.07.2012 in Crl.R.C. No. 199 of 2001 was not challenged by the petitioner in a manner known to law and it had become final. Thus, the order dated 20.09.2001 of the trial court, taking cognisance only as against A-1, has been affirmed by the District Court, Coimbatore and it had become final. While so, it is not open to the petitioner to file the present petition under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. to once again raise the same plea to rope in the respondents 2 and 3 also as accused 2 and 3 in C.C. No. 728 of 2001. The trial court not only dismissed the present application on the ground that the matter has reached finality by the order dated 30.07.2002 passed by the District Court, Coimbatore, but also independently considered the plea of the petitioner and held that there is no material available on record to proceed against the respondents 2 and 3 herein. It was also held by the trial court that the resolution was signed only by the first accused/first respondent herein and therefore, the complaint, at the best, can be maintained only as against the first accused. 7. When we analyse the alleged defamatory statement made by the respondents herein, it is seen that the first respondent herein passed a resolution on behalf of the association. 7. When we analyse the alleged defamatory statement made by the respondents herein, it is seen that the first respondent herein passed a resolution on behalf of the association. As rightly pointed out by the trial court, the resolution was signed only by the first respondent herein in his capacity as President of the Association, while so, it is just and proper to proceed against A-1 alone for defamation. Merely because the respondents 2 and 3 are also holding the post of Treasurer in the association, the plea of the petitioners to launch prosecution as against them is not legally sustainable. In any event, the earlier attempt made by the Petitioner to assail the order dated 20.09.2001 of the trial court, refusing to include the respondents 2 and 3 as accused, was ultimately affirmed by the District Court in Crl.R.C. No. 199 of 2001 on 30.07.2002. Therefore, the present petition filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. is not legally sustainable. 8. Section 319 of Cr.P.C. only contemplates that where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. In the present case, the trial court has categorically come to a conclusion, based on the materials available on record, that no case is made out against the respondents 2 and 3 to be tried for the offence under Section 500 of Cr.P.C. and they need not be proceed with in the course of the trial. I do not find any reason to interfere with such a reasoned order passed by the trial court. Therefore, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. 9. It is now brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the pendency of this Criminal Revision Case, the trial court has not taken up the C.C. No. 728 of 2001 for hearing and it is pending even as on date. Therefore, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. 9. It is now brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the pendency of this Criminal Revision Case, the trial court has not taken up the C.C. No. 728 of 2001 for hearing and it is pending even as on date. Considering the fact that the C.C. No. 728 of 2001 is pending for a long time, the trial court is directed to dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.