Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 425 (BOM)

Prafulla Hedge v. Vineeta Vaze

2014-02-17

MRIDULA R.BHATKAR

body2014
Judgment : This petition challenges the Judgment and order dated 5/5/2012 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Mapsua thereby confirming the order passed by the learned Magistrate issuing process under section 500 against the respondent. It is the case of the respondent that she gave written complaint dated 19/2/2009 to the Inspector General of Police (I.G.P. for short) against the respondent and her husband who owned a company by name 'Rajat International" which is dealing in supply of iron ore and the petitioner is also in the business of export of iron ore. The petitioner has placed the order for some 5000 tonnes of 58% fe and 10,000 tonnes of 53% iron ore and has paid advance of Rs.1.02 crore for supply of the iron ore. However, the company of the respondent did not supply the ore' as per the quality order. The petitioner, therefore, lodged a written complaint with the I.G.P. against the' respondent and her husband for supply of inferior quality ore and cheating the petitioner. Whether pursuant to the said complaint F.I.R was registered or not is not made clear before this Court. However, the statement made in the said written complaint is the ground to lodge the private complaint for defamation under section 499 I.P.C. before the JMFC against the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that in the written statement she had made a statement that the respondent has committed fraud when she was working with some Rajat International from where she was dismissed. This statement, as per the respondent is false and therefore she filed private complaint under section 190 of the Cr.P.C. The respondent examined herself on oath and produced documentary evidence in support of her case inter alia the learned Magistrate issued process under section 500 of the I.P.C. against the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing revision before the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge maintained the said order and dismissed the revision. Hence the petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner raises a question of law whether the averments in the written complaint can form the basis for filing criminal complaint under section 499 of Cr. P.C. i.e. of defamation punishable under section 500 of the I.P.C.? 3. The learned Sessions Judge maintained the said order and dismissed the revision. Hence the petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner raises a question of law whether the averments in the written complaint can form the basis for filing criminal complaint under section 499 of Cr. P.C. i.e. of defamation punishable under section 500 of the I.P.C.? 3. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner gave complaint to the I.G.P i.e. the authority dealing with the investigation and therefore, the averments made in the complaint are to be protected and there should be impunity from search and impunity is to be given to those allegations. In support of his submissions he relied on: (i) 'Mr. Umar Abid Khan & Ors. Vs. Vincy Gonsalves alias Vincent Gonsalves & Ors.[2010(1)ALL MR 74] (ii) "Anjana Saikia (Das) Vs. Anuradha Das and Anr. [Many/GH/0097/2003]. 4. Learned counsel submitted that if at all the allegations made in the complaint are challenged by the accused on the ground that the allegations are defamatory then it will be difficult for a person to seek remedy by putting his/her case before the authority. Learned counsel further submitted that in the complaint filed by the respondent before the learned JMFC, in para 12 of the said complaint, it is mentioned that due to the imputation the moral and intellectual character of the complainant before the police is lowered down. Learned counsel argued that due to imputation the moral and intellectual character of the respondent is not lowered down in the eyes of the public and therefore, section 499 cannot be attracted. It is further contended that after the completion of the case of cheating, if the respondent is acquitted then, the respondent can file case for defamation under section 499 of the I.P.C. said remedy is always available to the accused to restore his dignity by filing civil as well as criminal proceedings against the complainant and therefore, this complaint is premature. He further submitted that the point of limitation will not come in the way of the respondent for filing the case as under section 473 of the Cr. P.C. the limitation can be extended. 5. He further submitted that the point of limitation will not come in the way of the respondent for filing the case as under section 473 of the Cr. P.C. the limitation can be extended. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has distinguished both the judgments relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, especially on the ground that the judgment in the case of "Umar Abid Khan" of the Division Bench of this Court was in respect of the civil liability under the Law of Torts where the law is not specially codified. However, in the present case, the respondent has preferred criminal remedy under the I.P.C under codified section 499. He further submitted that the respondent has produced certain documents in support of the case and only after considering the said oral and documentary evidence learned JMFC has issued process against the respondent. Learned counsel read over the judgment of the Sessions Court and pointed out that the learned Judge has taken the correct view in upholding the order passed by the learned JMFC. He submitted that the allegation of the dismissal of the respondent from Rajan International as alleged by the petitioner is the subject which is totally unconnected with the case of the petitioner of supplying sub quality of iron ore. 6. Heard learned counsel on both the sides. Perused the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Court, so also the record placed before the Court. After the complaint is filed to the police, it is recorded under section 154 of the Cr.P.C. Then those averments made in the F.I.R can be protected and that cannot be a ground for the defamation. However, in the present case, the written complaint is given by the petitioner to the I.G.P. However, on the basis of the said complaint, it appears that the no information under section 154 of Cr. P.C. was recorded and the offence is also not registered pursuant to the said information by the police. The complainant/respondent has presented the complaint for defamation referring to a statement made by the petitioner in her written complaint in respect of her dismissal from Rajat International due to commission of the fraud. A statement of dishonesty is unrelated to the incident or if alleged statement is proved to be false then it may amount to defamation. The complainant/respondent has presented the complaint for defamation referring to a statement made by the petitioner in her written complaint in respect of her dismissal from Rajat International due to commission of the fraud. A statement of dishonesty is unrelated to the incident or if alleged statement is proved to be false then it may amount to defamation. It is also to be taken into account that if a person is of a high integrity and having high values in life, he may be defamed more. Whether lowering down image in the eyes of police will amount to defaming in the public or not will be a matter of evidence and trial. In the case of "Anjana Saikia (Das) (supra) of Gauhati High Court, the allegations made were by the wife directly in respect of the alleged incident of adultery by the husband and therefore, the complaints filed by the other parties on the ground of defamation were not allowed to proceed. In the present case, the facts are different. Moreover, the respondent has entered the box and has tendered documentary evidence that she was not dismissed but has resigned' from the company. The judgment given by the learned Sessions Judge is found well reasoned and the best possible view is taken by the Revisional Court and therefore it cannot be faulted out. Hence, the petition is dismissed. Five weeks time is granted to file appeal. Petition dismissed.