Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.
United Bank of India and Others – Petitioners
Versus
Debasis Sarkar – Respondent
CRR No. 123 of 2020
Decided On : 20-06-2023
DEFAMATION - CRIMINAL COMPLAINT - QUASHING - NOMINEE DIRECTOR - BANK FRAUD - NO INTENTION TO HARM REPUTATION - NO DEFAMATORY MATTER - EXCEPTIONS TO SECTION 499 IPC - PROCEEDINGS QUASHED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, office bearers of a nationalized bank, filed a complaint with the CBI against a company for fraud. The complainant, a nominee director of the company, was named in the complaint. The complainant alleged that the petitioners had defamed him by including his name in the complaint and conducting a raid at his house. The petitioners contended that they had acted in good faith and had no intention to harm the complainant's reputation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners had acted in good faith and had no intention to harm the complainant's reputation. The court also found that the complainant was a nominee director of the company and was therefore involved in the day-to-day affairs of the company. The court held that the petitioners had not made or published any imputation concerning the complainant and that there was no defamatory matter printed or engraved by the petitioners. The court further held that the petitioners had no belief that the matter was defamatory in character.
Issues: Whether the petitioners had acted in good faith and had no intention to harm the complainant's reputation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners had acted in good faith and had no intention to harm the complainant's reputation. The court also found that the complainant was a nominee director of the company and was therefore involved in the day-to-day affairs of the company. The court held that the petitioners had not made or published any imputation concerning the complainant and that there was no defamatory matter printed or engraved by the petitioners. The court further held that the petitioners had no belief that the matter was defamatory in character.
Final Decision: The court quashed the criminal complaint against the petitioners.
JUDGMENT :
SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.
1. The present revision has been preferred praying for quashing of Complaint Case No. CS/25013/19 under Sections 500/501/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and all orders passed therein including order dated 26.06.2019 passed by the Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Calcutta thereby taking cognizance and order dated 15.07.2019 passed by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court at Calcutta thereby issuing process against the petitioners.
2. The petitioners’ case is that petitioner No. 1 is a nationalized bank having its corporate finance office. The petitioner No. 2 is presently the Managing Director and CEO of the petitioner No. 1 and the petitioner No. 3 is the Assistant General Manager of the petitioner No. 1.
3. The accused No. 3 in the petition of complaint namely Pawan Bajaj was the erstwhile Managing Director and CEO of the petitioner No. 1. However, he has expired on or about 17.02.2019.
4. The petitioner No. 1 through petitioner No. 3 had lodged a complaint dated 21.10.2016 with the Central Bureau of Investigation against one M/s. Ramsarup Utpadak (Unit II) of Ramsarup Industries Limited and its Directors inter-alia on the premises of fraud perpetrated upon the Corporate Finance Branch of petitioner No. 1 for diverting a sum of Rs.130.95 crores from the account of Ramsarup Industries to one M/s. RAV Dravya Limited.
5. Vide letter No. 311/RSBSK 2013E0011 dated 20.01.2017, the Superintendent of Police & HOB, CBI, BS & FC, Kolkata directed the petitioner No. 3 to file the address of the Directors of the said accused company as per the records of the Bank along with other details.
6. Upon receipt of such letter in due compliance thereof the office of the petitioner no. 1 sent to the investigating authority a fresh complaint along with the detailed list of the directors and the addresses of the said Ramsarup Industries Limited vide their letter dated 04.05.2017 which was registered as FIR No. RCBSK2017E0002 dated 12.06.2017
7. Vide e-mails dated 20.06.2017, 01.07.2017, 07.07.2017 and 09.08.2017 the opposite party informed the petitioners that he was only a nominated director of Ramsarup Industries Limited on behalf of IDBI Bank.
8. That vide letter dated 08.09.2017 despatched on 22.09.2017 the petitioner no. 3 had informed the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation about the fact that the opposite party herein was a nominee Director of IDBI Bank Limited and that he was not connected either directly or indirectly with the day to day financial dealings of the company.
9. The petitioners were shocked and surprised to receive a letter dated 26.04.2019 from one Mr. Kausik De, Learned Advocate claiming to act on behalf of the opposite party herein whereby the petitioners were put on notice to (a) withdraw within 10 days the name of the opposite party from the complaint dated 04.05.2017 before the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Bank Securities and Frauds Cell, C.G.O. Complex, DF Block, F-Wing, 1st Floor, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700 064, (b) issue an unconditional apology to his client or his family members for their disrepute, social humility, etc. in widely circulated national newspaper, (c) compensate adequately commensurate to the status of his client.
10. That vide letter dated 24.05.2019 addressed to Mr. Kausik De, Learned Advocate, the petitioner No. 1 being represented by Mr. Ratnesh Kr. Rai, Learned Advocate had replied to the said letter dated 26.04.2019 thereby stating that the petitioner No. 1 had taken prompt steps to issue an intimation dated 08.09.2017 to the Central Bureau of Investigation, when it was brought to the notice of the petitioner No. 1 that the opposite party herein was not involved in the day to day financial dealings of the company and requested the Central Bureau of Investigation to take the correct facts on record and that the petitioner No. 1 has performed its obligations under law to the fullest extent.
11. The opposi
In a defamation case, the accused must have acted with the intention to harm the reputation of the complainant and must have made or published a defamatory statement.
Statements made without evidence that harm a public official's reputation can constitute defamation under IPC, justifying criminal proceedings.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the accused persons were entitled to the benefit of exception 1 to 9 of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, as the imputation was made in....
The court established that defamation claims require clear intent to harm, and the absence of such intent, along with applicable exceptions, can lead to quashing of proceedings.
The court established that the intent to harm reputation is a key element of defamation under Section 499 of the IPC, and the burden of proving that an imputation falls within the Exceptions lies wit....
The court held that allegations of defamation and criminal intimidation lacked substance and failed to meet the necessary legal criteria under IPC Sections 500 and 506.
(1) Defamation – ”BJP” is a determinate and identifiable body and complaint for defamation under Section 500 IPC is maintainable.(2) Defamation – Right of a person against whom offence of defamation ....
The court established that for a defamation claim under IPC Sections 499 and 500, the publication must lower the reputation of the complainant, and the truth of the statements must be proven in their....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
