Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 667 (GUJ)

Jayantiben Keshav Furgo v. State Of Gujarat

2021-08-09

B.N.KARIA

body2021
JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Learned advocate Mr. Mehulsharad Shah waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of respondent No.2 and learned APP waives service of notice of rule for the respondent – State. 2. As identical issue is involved in both these petitions, on a joint request made by learned advocates for the respective parties as well as learned APP, these petitions are disposed of by passing a common order. 3. Short facts emerged from the petitions arise as under. For the sake of convenience, Special Criminal Application No.2429/2014 is treated as lead matter. 3.1 “The respondent No.2, filed a complaint against the petitioners before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Porbandar under Section 500 of the IPC. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Porbandar, after recording verification and statement of the witnesses, issued process against the petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section 500 of the IPC. Initially, the petitioners preferred Criminal Misc. Application No.1384/2012 with Criminal Misc. Application No.1385/2012 before this Court. But, on 08.02.2012, under the instruction of the petitioners, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners seek permission to withdraw both these applications with a liberty to take action in accordance with law before the competent Court with regard to the subject matter and therefore, permission was granted with clarification that Court has not entered into the merits of the case and the subject matter of the complaint will be decided by the learned Magistrate in accordance with law. The petitioner challenged the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Porbandar issuing process against him in connection with the complaint filed by the respondent No.2 i.e. Criminal Case No.1605/2011 by preferring Criminal Revision Application No.8/2012 before the learned Sessions Judge at Porbandar. 4. After hearing the parties, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Porbandar by his order dismissed the revision application on 13.05.2014. Hence this petition is submitted under Article 226 of Constitution of India as well as under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Petitioner has sought following relief in the present petition. “7(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to call for the records and proceedings of both the Courts below and further be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 13.5.2014 passed by Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Porbandar in Criminal Revision Application No.8/2012 and the order of issuance of process passed against the petitioner by the Ld. “7(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to call for the records and proceedings of both the Courts below and further be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 13.5.2014 passed by Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Porbandar in Criminal Revision Application No.8/2012 and the order of issuance of process passed against the petitioner by the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Porbandar u/s. 204 of Cr.P.C. In Criminal Case No.3605/2011, in the interest of justice; IN THE ALTERNATIVE (AA) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to quash the impugned complaint being Criminal Case No.3605/2011 filed in the Court of Ld. CJM, Porbandar for the offences punishable u/s. 500 of IPC and all further proceedings in pursuance thereto, in the interest of justice; (B) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to stay the further proceedings of complaint being Criminal Case No.3605/2011 filed in the Court of Ld. CJM, Porbandar for the offences punishable u/s. 500 of IPC, pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, in the interest of justice; (C) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to stay the implementation, operation and execution of impugned orders dated 13.05.2014 passed by Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Porbandar in Criminal Revision Application No.8/2012 and the order of issuance of process passed against the petitioner by the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Porbandar u/s. 204 of Cr.P.C. in Criminal Case No.3605/2011, pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, in the interest of justice; (D) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to grant such other and further reliefs, as may be deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court, in the interest of justice; 5. Heard learned advocate Mr. Virat G. Popat for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr. Dev Patel appearing for learned advocate Mr. Mehul S. Shah for the respondent No.2 and learned APP Mr. H. K. Patel for the respondent No.1. 6. It is submitted by learned advocate for the petitioner that Regular Civil Suit No.8/2010 was filed by the petitioner for declaration and permanent injunction before the learned Civil Judge (JD) and certain reliefs were sought against the respondent No.2 as well as earlier partner Shri Navinchandra Gandhi. It is further submitted that in the suit filed by the petitioner, it was pleaded that respondent No.2 herein is an infamous man having no good reputation and such allegations were made and because of that, reputation of the complainant was tarnished and therefore offence of defamation was taken place. It is further submitted that in the suit filed by the petitioner, it was pleaded that respondent No.2 herein is an infamous man having no good reputation and such allegations were made and because of that, reputation of the complainant was tarnished and therefore offence of defamation was taken place. It was alleged that the said pleadings has been published in the newspapers which has caused defamation. He has further submitted that wife of the respondent No.2 had also filed a criminal complaint before the learned C.J.M., Porbandar under the same set of allegations in which she failed up to the Sessions Court, Visavadar. That initially, said complaint was registered as Criminal Inquiry Case No.8/2010 and subsequently, it was registered as Criminal Case No.3605/2011. It is submitted that in the complaint filed by the wife of the respondent No.2, it was alleged that husband of the complainant was joined as defendant in the suit proceedings and allegations were levelled against him and because of that, defamation has taken place. That the said complaint filed by the wife was rejected by the learned Magistrate and revision application filed against the same was also rejected by the Sessions Court. That the present complaint filed by the respondent No.2, is based on the same set of allegations which amounts to serious abuse and misuse of process of law. It is further submitted that for the purpose of changing the jurisdiction of the Court, successive prosecution has been lodged by the respondent No.2. That he has suppressed the filing of the earlier complaint filed by his wife and its rejection up to the Sessions Court. It is further submitted that issuance of summons / process is obtained by fraud by the respondent No.2. That no offence is made out by the present petitioner as averred in the complaint. It is further submitted Explanation 4 of Section 499 and Exception No.8 of Section 499 makes it clear that in the present case, no offence has taken place. It is further submitted that the defamation as alleged in the complaint is based on publication of the news Article of filing of suit before the Civil Court at Diu by the petitioner. That petitioner cannot be held liable for a news which may be published by the media in any manner and therefore also no defamation at all is made out by the respondent No.2. That petitioner cannot be held liable for a news which may be published by the media in any manner and therefore also no defamation at all is made out by the respondent No.2. It is further submitted that learned Magistrate has committed grave error in issuing process against the petitioner. That in the suit filed by the petitioner, it is nowhere alleged that respondent No.2 herein belongs to a particular community and because of that he is “head strong”. That pleadings in the Court proceedings would never amount to an imputation intending to harm or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation may harm the reputation of such person in any manner. That as per explanation 4 of Section 499 of IPC, alleged imputation cannot harm the reputation of respondent No.2. That present complaint has been filed with a mala fide intention to harass the petitioner and her family members. That publication of the averments made in the Civil Suit filed by the petitioner in the newspaper was not at all at the behest of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the publishers i.e. editor in the newspaper company have not been joined as an accused in the impugned complaint. That no cognizance can be taken by the learned Magistrate in summoning the petitioner. That no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. In support of his arguments, learned advocate for the petitioners has relied upon the following judgments: (1) Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande & Ors. v. Uttam & Another reported in AIR 1999 SC 1028 (2) Pandey Surendranath Sinha and Ors. v. Bageshwari Pd. Reported in AIR 1961 Pat 164 (3) Atul Kumar Pandey v. Kumar Avinash. (4) YogeshBabulal Shah v. K. S. Bhasin reported in 2005 (3) GLH 553 (5) Anil Khadkiwala v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and Ors. Reported in AIR 2019 SC 3583 (6) Vinod Kumar, IAS v. Union of India and Ors. Writ Petition(s) (Criminal) No. (s) 255/2021 (7) Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Mohan Singh and Ors. reported in SCC 1975 (3) 706 (8) Navinchandra Vishnuprasad Shah v. State of Gujarat and Anr. Reported in 2013 (2) GLH 724 (9) Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi reported in 1976 (3) SCC 736 (10) Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal and Ors. Reported in (2005) 1 GLR 546 (11) G. Sagar Suri and Anr. reported in SCC 1975 (3) 706 (8) Navinchandra Vishnuprasad Shah v. State of Gujarat and Anr. Reported in 2013 (2) GLH 724 (9) Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi reported in 1976 (3) SCC 736 (10) Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal and Ors. Reported in (2005) 1 GLR 546 (11) G. Sagar Suri and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors. Reported in 2000 (2) SCC 636 (12) S.W. Palanitkar and Ors. v. State of Bihar And Anr. Reported in 2001 (4) Suppl. SCR 397 (13) Anil Mahajan v. Bhor Industries Ltd. & Anr. (2205) 10 SCC 228 (14) S.K. Alagh vs State of U.P. & Ors. (2008) 5 SCC 662 (15) T. T. Antony v. State of Kerala and Others (2001) 6 SCC 181 6. Per contra learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.2 has supported the order passed by the Learned JMFC as well as the revisional Court arguing that the petition itself is not maintainable before this Court. It is submitted that the petition is in the nature of second revision as the order passed by the learned Magistrate was challenged before the Sessions Court by preferring Criminal Revision Application No.8/2012 under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore, present petition challenging the order passed by the Sessions Court in the Revision Application is in the nature of second revision which would not be maintainable. It is further submitted that after recording verification and considering the evidence on record, learned chief Judicial Magistrate, Porbandar has passed the order to register the complaint and inquiry under Section 202 of Criminal Procedure Code dated 03.01.2011. It is further submitted that considering the evidence produced by the complainant, learned Magistrate was pleased to issue summons to the accused persons vide order dated 07.10.2011 under Section 204 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC. That issuing summons against the petitioner was challenged by the petitioner by way of filing Criminal Revision Application No.8/2012 before the Sessions Court, Porbandar which was to dismissed on 13.05.2004. It is further submitted that at present when only summons is issued by the Magistrate and matter is still required to be considered on merits, at the initial stage, this Court may not interfere with the order passed by the learned Magistrate and confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. It is further submitted that at present when only summons is issued by the Magistrate and matter is still required to be considered on merits, at the initial stage, this Court may not interfere with the order passed by the learned Magistrate and confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. It is further submitted that alternative prayer made by the petitioner to quash the impugned complaint under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., petitioner had already filed a petition to quash the criminal complaint but same was withdrawn with a liberty to file an appropriate application before the learned Magistrate and therefore, once this Court has examined the contents of the complaint and when it was not inclined to interfere with the complaint, petitioners sought permission to file an appropriate application before the learned Magistrate. That learned Additional Sessions Judge also confirmed the order passed by the Magistrate and Revision Application preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. That this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India may not invoke the powers of superintendence in the nature of second revision. 7. It is further submitted that the complaint was filed by the respondent No.2 in the capacity of owners of Kohinoor Hotel situated at Diu alleging defamation to him on the basis of the news published in “Jay Hind” and “Junagadh Samachar” daily newspapers making defamatory statements in the Regular Civil Suit No.7/2010. That cogent and convincing reasons have been assigned by the learned Additional Sessions Judge while dismissing the revision application preferred by the petitioner. That no error is committed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge or by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in issuing summons against the petitioner in Criminal Case No.3606/2011. Hence it was requested by learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.2, to dismiss the petition. In support of his arguments, learned advocate for the respondent No.2 has relied upon the following judgments: (1) Jagir Singh Vs. Ranbir Singh & Another (1979) 1 SCC 560 (2) Yes Bank Ltd. Through Mr. Hemal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat 2012 (0) GLHELhc 228996 (3) Gambhirsinh R. Dekare Vs. Falgunbhai Chimanbhai Patel & Another (2013) 3 SCC 697 (4) Fiona Shrikhande Vs. State of Maharashtra & Another (2013) 14 SCC 44 (5) Rajathi Vs. C. Ganesan (1999) 6 SCC 326 8. Hemal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat 2012 (0) GLHELhc 228996 (3) Gambhirsinh R. Dekare Vs. Falgunbhai Chimanbhai Patel & Another (2013) 3 SCC 697 (4) Fiona Shrikhande Vs. State of Maharashtra & Another (2013) 14 SCC 44 (5) Rajathi Vs. C. Ganesan (1999) 6 SCC 326 8. Learned APP appearing for the respondent No.2 has supported the arguments advanced by the learned advocate for the respondent No.2. He tried to distinguish the contents of the two complaints filed by the wife of the respondent No.2 and respondent himself. Learned APP referring these two different complaints, argued that reputation of the wife was independently damaged as per the contents of her complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Visavadar in Inquiry Case No.8/2010. He has also referred the prayer made in the complaint damaging her reputation as well as the entire community. That averments made in the Civil Suit are published in a daily newspaper “Jay Hind” on 27.11.2012. That dismissal of the complaint filed by the wife of the respondent No.2 would not be any hurdle in lodging the complaint by the respondent No.2 independently as his reputation was damaged as per the fresh complaint. It is further submitted that at the stage of complaint, Magistrate is merely concerned with the allegations made out in the complaint and has to see only prima facie satisfaction whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused and it is not the province of the Magistrate to inquire into a detailed discussion on the merits or demerits of the case. It is further submitted by the learned APP that scope of inquiry under Section 202 is very limited in the sense that Magistrate at this stage, is expected to examine prima facie the truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint. It is further submitted by learned APP that Magistrate is not expected to embark upon a discussion on the merits or demerits of the case and once the Magistrate has exercised its discretion in forming an opinion that there is ground for proceedings, it is not proper for the High Courts to substitute its own discretion for that of the Magistrate. It is further submitted that Magistrate has to decide the question purely from the point of view of the complaints, without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have. It is further submitted that Magistrate has to decide the question purely from the point of view of the complaints, without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have. Under the circumstances, it is requested by learned APP to dismiss both the petitions and confirm the order passed by the revisional Court as well as learned judicial Magistrate. 9. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties as well as learned APP for the respondent-State, it appears that present petitioner i.e. Smt. Jayantiben Keshav Furgo filed a Regular Civil Suit No.8 of 2010 for declaration and permanent injunction in the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Diu. In the said suit, certain relief was sought against the respondent No.2 as well as earlier partner Shri Navinchandra Gandhi as stated therein. In the suit filed by the petitioner/ plaintiff before the Civil Court at Diu, it was stated that “defendant No.2/respondent No.2 herein is an infamous man having no good reputation in the business society of Diu. He is known for his quarrelsome nature and for his high handedness. Numerous civil as criminal cases are filed against him and by him and he has created fear psychic among the business community of Diu”. The above said civil suit was filed by the present petitioner against Shri. Navinchandra Jagmohandas Gandhi, respondent No.2 Shri Devshi @ Goganbhai Gangabhai Khunti and respondent No.3 Kishoriben N. Fugro. The respondent No.2 filed two different complaints against the present petitioner being a partner of M/S. Kalpana Distillery as well as No.1 Vishvas Narayan Fugro and No.2 Yatin Keshav Fugro under Section 500 of the I.P.C., which was registered as Criminal Inquiry Case No.3 of 2011 and Criminal Inquiry Case No.4 of 2011 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Porbandar. The present petitioner has filed Special Criminal Application No.2429 of 2014 while Shri Vishvas Narayan Fugro and Shri. Yatin Keshav Fugro have filed separate Special Criminal Application No.2430 of 2014 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as well as under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 with a request to quash the impugned complaint being Criminal Case No.3605/2011 as well as Criminal Case No.3606/2011 filed in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Porbandar for the offence punishable under Section 500 of I.P.C and all further proceedings in pursuance thereto, in the interest of justice. 10. 10. It appears that on filing Regular Civil Suit No.8 of 2010 by the present petitioner against the respondent No.2 before the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Diu, initially wife of the respondent No.2 namely Maliben filed one complaint being Inquiry Case No.8/2010 before the learned JMFC, Visavadar under Section 500 of I.P.C. In the said complaint filed by the wife of the respondent No.2, it was alleged that “in the above civil suit No.8 of 2010 filed by the petitioner before the Civil Court of Diu, pleadings were made that respondent No.2 herein is an infamous man having no good reputation and because of that, reputation of the complainant and her husband was tarnished, and therefore, offence of defamation was taken place. It was also alleged in the complaint that said pleadings were published in the newspapers, which has again caused defamation”. Initially in the complaint, filed by the wife of the respondent No.2, learned Magistrate carried out the inquiry and verified all the aspects and vide order dated 20.12.2010, learned Magistrate, was pleased to reject the complaint being Inquiry Case No.8 of 2010 on (Annexure“ D”). Wife of the respondent No.2 who was the complainant in Inquiry Case No.8 of 2010, being dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 20.12.2010 approached the Sessions Court, Junagadh by filing Criminal Revision Application No.142 of 2010. After hearing both the parties, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh vide order dated 16.09.2011 was pleased to reject the said Revision Application (Annexure“ E”). Thereafter, respondent no.2 decided to change the title of the very litigation having failed before the competent court filed second complaint against the present petitioner in his own name before the learned CJM, Porbandar. Same set of allegations, which were made by the wife of the respondent No.2 in her previous complaint, which was registered as Inquiry Case No.8 of 2010. Initially, said complaint filed by the respondent No.2 was registered as Criminal Inquiry Case No.3 of 2011. Thereafter, learned Magistrate was pleased to register the complaint as Criminal Case No.3605 of 2011 as well as second complaint as Criminal Case No.3606 of 2011 against the petitioner in Special Criminal Application No.2430 of 2014. The petitioner namely Smt. Jayantiben Keshav Furgo approached this Court by way of Misc. Criminal Application No.1385 of 2012 for quashing of the above complaint. The petitioner namely Smt. Jayantiben Keshav Furgo approached this Court by way of Misc. Criminal Application No.1385 of 2012 for quashing of the above complaint. At the relevant point of time, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the quashing petition on 08.02.2012 with a liberty to approach the competent court in accordance with law as stated therein (Annexure“ F”). Thereafter petitioner namely Smt. Jayantiben Keshav Furgo filed Criminal Revision Application No.8 of 2012 before the District & Sessions Judge, Porbandar under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order of issuance of process in complaint being Criminal Case No.3605 of 2011 filed before the learned CJM, Porbandar for the offence punishable under Section 500 of I.P.C. Written arguments were submitted by the present petitioner in support of her case in Criminal Revision Application No.8/2012 vide Exh.10. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Porbandar by impugned order dated 13.05.2014 dismissed the Criminal Revision Application No.8/2012 and confirmed the order passed by the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Porbandar. It is undisputed fact that initially wife of the respondent no.2 had filed criminal complaint before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Visavadar wherein it was specifically stated that her husband was joined as a defendant in the suit proceedings pending before the Civil Court, Diu and certain allegations were levelled against him and because of that, defamation was taken place. It was further alleged that in the newspaper, proceedings of the Civil Court i.e. pleadings taken by the petitioner in the suit were published, and therefore, defamation was taken place. The said complaint preferred by the wife of the respondent No.2 for the same offence was rejected by the learned Magistrate and Criminal Revision Application No.142 of 2010 filed by her was also rejected by the learned Sessions Court. The impugned complaint filed by the respondent no.2 later on is completely based on the said set of allegations. However, learned Magistrate, Visavadar has dismissed the complaint filed by the wife of the respondent no.2 in accordance with the provisions of Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code and revisional court has also rejected the same and said proceedings have attained finality. Issue earlier decided by one competent court can not be rehesitated before any court of law except the higher forum. Issue earlier decided by one competent court can not be rehesitated before any court of law except the higher forum. It also appears from two different complaints filed by the wife of the respondent No.2 as well as by the respondent No.2, pleadings are also conveniently changed for the purpose of changing the jurisdiction of the court and successive prosecution has been lodged by the respondent No.2. It appears from the impugned complaint filed by the respondent no.2 that he has suppressed the fact of filing earlier complaint preferred by his wife and rejected by the learned Sessions Court. Further if we refer the “defamation” as defined under Section 499 of I.P.C., no offence can be said to have taken place even prima facie. Explanation No.4 of Section 499 makes it clear that in the present case, no offence has taken place. It appears that apprehension of the respondent No.2 in his complaint that the pleadings made in the suit by the present petitioner would cause his defamation is based on publication of the news article of filing of the suit before the Civil Court at Diu by the petitioner. According to this Court, petitioner can not be held liable for any news which are published by the media in any manner. However, it appears that learned Magistrate has issued the process against the petitioner and has committed gross error of jurisdiction. There is no pleadings in the civil suit preferred by the present petitioner that respondent No.2 herein belongs to a particular community and because of that he is head strong. It is nowhere alleged in the plaint that respondent no.2 herein is from Porbandar, and therefore, he is head strong. However, according to opinion of this Court, taking any pleadings in the court proceedings would not amount to an imputation intending to harm or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm reputation of such person in any manner. The Impugned imputation would neither directly or indirectly, in estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of the complainant in respect of his caste or his calling or lowers the credit of respondent No.2 or would cause it to be believed that the body of the respondent No.2 is in a loathsome state or in a state generally considered as disgraceful. 11. 11. Prima facie, it appears from the documents produced on record and submissions made by learned advocates for the respective parties as well as learned APP for the respondent-State that present complaint has been filed with a mala fide intention and harass the petitioner and her family members. Prosecution initiated by the respondent No.2/complainant is initiated only on the basis of publication of news item in the newspaper. It can be said that said publication can not at the behest of the present petitioner. Further it appears that the publishers i.e. the editors and the newspaper company are not joined as accused in the impugned complaint. Prima facie, it appears that prosecution is initiated out of personal grudge and sort out some other dispute by way of using all illegal tactics. The criminal complaint against the present petitioner is severe abuse of the process of law as no prima facie case is made out against the present petitioner. Further it appears that the impugned order passed by the courts below are illegal and bad in law. 12. In the case of T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala and others reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: 19. The scheme of the Cr.P.C. is that an officer in charge of a Police Station has to commence investigation as provided in Section 156 or 157 of Cr.P.C. on the basis of entry of the First Information Report, on coming to know of the commission of a cognizable offence. On completion of investigation and on the basis of evidence collected he has to form opinion under Section 169 or 170 of Cr.P.C., as the case may be, and forward his report to the concerned Magistrate under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. However, even after filing such a report if he comes into possession of further information or material, he need not register a fresh FIR, he is empowered to make further investigation, normally with the leave of the court, and where during further investigation he collects further evidence, oral or documentary, he is obliged to forward the same with one or more further reports; this is the import of subsection (8) of Section 173 Cr.P.C. 20. From the above discussion it follows that under the scheme of the provisions of Sections 154, 155, 156,157, 162, 169, 170 and 173 of Cr.P.C. only the earliest or the first information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of Section 154 Cr.P.C. Thus there can be no second F.I.R. and consequently there can be no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. On receipt of information about a cognizable offence or an incident giving rise to a cognizable offence or offences and on entering the F.I.R. in the station house diary, the officer in charge of a Police Station has to investigate not merely the cognizable offence reported in the FIR but also other connected offences found to have been committed in the course of the same transaction or the same occurrence and file one or more reports as provided in Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. 13. In the case of Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal and ors. reported in (2005) 1 GLR Page 546 it is held that “in absence of specific powers, the learned Magistrate is not empowered to recall or resent the process.” 14. In the case of G. Sagar Suri and Anr. V. State of U.P. and others reported in (2000) 2 SCC 636 , it is held that issuance of process is a serious matter and criminal court has to exercise great deal and caution before issuing the process. 15. In the case of S.W. Palantikar and ors. v. State of Bihar and another reported in 2001 (4) Supply SCR 397, proceedings were initiated after referring the case of Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi & ors. reported in 1976 (3) SCC 736 . 16. Insofar as the question of maintainability of the petitions on the ground of the petitioners having earlier resorted to be similar proceedings is concerned, it cannot be disputed. At the relevant point of time, in Misc. Criminal Application No.1385 of 2012, petitioner was permitted to withdraw the quashing petition vide order dated 08.02.2012 with a liberty to approach the competent court in accordance with law as he had not availed the remedy as provided under the criminal procedure code. At the relevant point of time, in Misc. Criminal Application No.1385 of 2012, petitioner was permitted to withdraw the quashing petition vide order dated 08.02.2012 with a liberty to approach the competent court in accordance with law as he had not availed the remedy as provided under the criminal procedure code. Thereafter he had approached the learned Sessions Court by preferring Criminal Revision Application, which was dismissed by the court. After taking into consideration the orders passed by the court below and sessions court and the documents along with it, the petitioners have moved this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. independently than the previous proceedings. It is therefore held that this proceeding is maintainable. 17. At this stage, it will be useful to refer the observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of S.W. Palanitkar and Ors vs. State of Bihar and Anr. reported in 2001 (4) Supply SCR 397, which is as under: “In case of a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. or IPC a Magistrate can take cognizance of the offence made out and then has to examine the complainant and his witnesses; if any, to ascertain whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused to issue process so that the issue of process is prevented on a complaint which is either false or vexatious or intended only to harass. Such examination is provided in order to find out whether there is or not sufficient ground for proceeding. The words 'sufficient ground', used under Section 203 have to be construed to mean the satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out against the accused and not sufficient ground for the purpose of conviction.” 18. In the instant case, it is admitted position that wife of the respondent No.2 had initially filed a complaint before the competent Criminal Court, which was dismissed by the learned JMFC. Order of learned JMFC was challenged by the wife of the respondent No.2 before the Sessions Court in criminal revision application, which was also dismissed by the sessions Court. The respondent No.2 by changing the jurisdiction of the court filed separate complaint against the present petitioners who have approached before this Court in two different petitions on same set of facts. The respondent No.2 by changing the jurisdiction of the court filed separate complaint against the present petitioners who have approached before this Court in two different petitions on same set of facts. Filing of earlier complaint by his wife before the learned JMFC, dismissal of the complaint and order passed by the Sessions Court were suppressed in the impugned complaint. Exception 4, 8 and 9 read with explanation 4 of Section 499 of I.P.C., no offence of defamation has taken place as alleged in the complaint. The allegation in the complaint is that the petitioner filed a civil suit wherein certain averments are published by some newspaper which has caused the defamation to the respondent No.2. The complaint filed by the respondent No.2 would be barred by Section 300 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code being successive prosecution as for the very set of allegations, earlier complaint filed by the wife of the respondent No.2 was dismissed up to sessions Court. 19. The present petitioner is engaged in her business in local area of Diu as well as her family members. One Shri. Navinchandra Jagmohandas Gandhi was one of the partner alongwith petitioner, he retired as a partner from the partnership firm namely Kalpana Distillery with effect from 30.09.2010. Shri. Navinchandra Jagmohandas Gandhi executed one power of attorney in favour of the respondent No.2 herein to act on his behalf in the partnership affairs as per his claim. Under these circumstances, there appears some dispute amongst the partners. 20. In view of the above discussion, it appears that dispute raised by the respondent No.2 of damaging his prestige or offence committed under Section 500 of I.P.C. cannot be said to be attracting any of the penal provisions referred to hereinabove, and therefore, the prosecution could not have been proceeded with the offence as aforesaid. 21. Therefore both these petitions succeed. The impugned complaint i.e. Criminal Case No. 3605 of 2011 and Criminal Case No.3606 of 2011 filed in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Porbandar for the offence punishable under section 500 of I.P.C. and consequential further proceedings stand quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.