Important point
In the facts of the case High Court was neither justified nor right in law quashing the criminal proceedings initiated for offence under Section 500 IPC on a private complaint that too exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 500—Offence under—Private complaint—Magistrate issued summons to Respondents 1 and 2 prima facie finding a case against them for proceeding with complaint—Petition against under Section 482 Cr.P.C.—High Court quashed the proceedings relying on AIR 1988 SC 709—Appeal against to Supreme Court—Whether High Court was right in quashing the proceedings? (No)—Case law discussed—Appeal allowed accordingly (Cross Ref. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 138—Cr.P.C. 1973—Section 436).
       Held : We have considered the rival submissions. The High Court relying on para 7 of the judgment in Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia and another v. Sambhajirao Chandrajirao Angre and others etc. (AIR 1988 SC 709) exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 quashed the proceedings. The learned Judge did not bestow his attention to the facts of that case and the discussions made in paras 6 and 8 of the said judgment. The High Court has read para 7 in isolation. If para 7 is read carefully two aspects are to be satisfied: (1) whether the uncontroverted allegations, as made in the complaint, prima facie establish the offence, and (2) whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. On plain reading of the order of the Magistrate, issuing summons to the respondents keeping in view the allegations made in the complaint and sworn statement of the appellant it appears to us that a prima facie case is made out at that stage. There are no special features in the case to say that it is not expedient and not in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. The learned Judge has failed to apply the tests indicated in para 7 of the judgment on which he relied. The High Court could not say at that stage that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction resulting in the case after a trial. The Magistrate had convicted the respondents for the offences under Sections 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the appeal filed by the respondents was also dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. Assuming that the imputations made could be covered by exception 9 of Section 499 IPC, several questions still remain to be examined whether such imputations were made in good faith, in what circumstances, with what intention, etc. All these can be examined on the basis of evidence in the trial. (Para 7)
       Held consequently : Having regard to the facts of the instant case and in the light of the decisions in Sewakram Sobhani v. R.K. Karanjia, Chief Editor, Weekly Blitz and others [(1981) 3 SCC 208] and Shatrughna Prasad Sinha v. Rajbhau Surajmal Rathi [(1996) 6 SCC 263], we have no hesitation in holding that the High Court committed a manifest error in quashing the criminal proceedings exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Since the question of limitation was not raised before the High Court by the respondents and further whether the offence is continuing one or not and whether the date of the commission of offence could be taken as the one mentioned in the complaint are not the matters to be examined here at this stage. In these circumstances we have to reverse the impugned order of the High Court and restore that of the Magistrate. In the result for the reasons stated the impugned order of the High Court is set aside and that of the Magistrate is restored. The appeal is allowed accordingly. (Paras 10, 11 and 12)

JUDGMENT

Shivaraj V. Patil, J.—Leave granted.

2. The appellant filed a private complaint against the respondents alleging that they made imputations against him in the application made under Section 436 Cr.P.C. before the XIth Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall Court, Bangalore in C.C. No. 24877/96. The imputations made are to the following effect:–

“However Mr. M.N. Damani removed the cheque book at 9-30 by forcibly breaking open the drawer and made the accused 2 and 4 to write and sign by forge/threat as mentioned in the correspondence.”

“Mr. M.N. Damani had collected the cheques from us forcefully at 9-30 p.m. by threatening to hit us by lifting the office chair and by forcefully break opening the drawer of table containing the cheque book which was locked by our Accountant while leaving the office for the day.”

3. The Magistrate found these allegations as false and convicted the respondents (accused) for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on 17.12.1998. An appeal filed against the said order was dismissed by the IV Additional Sessions Court, Bangalore on 30.7.1999. According to the appellant the respondents made false and malicious allegations with intention or knowingly or having reasons to believe that such imputations would harm his reputation; due to these imputations made by them, the reputation of the appellant has been lowered in the eyes of his partners, the staff and the workers of factory at Vapi . Hence he prayed for punishing the respondents for the offence under Section 500 IPC. The Magistrate, on the complaint, after taking cognizance of the offence, recorded the sworn statement of the complainant (appellant herein). The Magistrate in his order stated thus:–

“From the sworn statement of the complainant and also from the documents produced by him, it is clear that the accused persons have made imputation against the complainant intending to harm or knowing or having reasons to believe, that such imputation will harm the reputation of the complainant. In my opinion, there are sufficient grounds to proceed the case against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 500 of the I.P.C.”

Hence he issued summons to respondents 1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Section 500 IPC.

4. The respondents filed a criminal petition before the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing the proceedings in C.C. No. 25353/99 arising out of PCR 559/99, pending on the file of the XIth Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall Court, Bangalore. After hearing the learned counsel for the respondents and the appellant (party-in-person) the learned single Judge of the High Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings in C.C. No. 25353/93. Hence this appeal is brought before this Court assailing the order of the High Court.

5. Mr. L. Nageswara Rao, learned senior counsel for the appellant, contended that the impugned order is, on the face of it, unsustainable. According to him the High Court was not right in interfering with the order passed by the learned Magistrate issuing summons to the respondents prima facie finding a case against them for proceeding with the complaint. In support of his submissions he cited two decisions of this Court in Sewakram Sobhani v. R.K. Karanjia, Chief Editor, Weekly Blitz and others1 and Shatrughna Prasad Sinha v. Rajbhau Surajmal Rathi and others2.

6. Mr. B.B. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, while making submissions supporting the impugned order, raised a new contention that the complaint filed by the appellant was barred by time and no cognizance of it could have been taken by the Magistrate. This argument was made on the basis that similar statements were made in the letter dated 26.2.1996 and the same were repeated in the application filed by the respondents under Section 436 Cr.P.C. seeking their discharge in CC No. 24877/96; the complaint was filed on 13.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Important point In the facts of the case High Court was neither justified nor right in law quashing the criminal proceedings initiated for offence under Section 500 IPC on a private complaint that too exercising its juris­diction ­under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Cases Referred (3)

Important point
In the facts of the case High Court was neither justified nor right in law quashing the criminal proceedings initiated for offence under Section 500 IPC on a private complaint that too exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.