Civil and criminal proceedings are independent, and the dismissal of a civil suit does not affect the validity of a criminal complaint based on the same cause of action.

M.L. Mehta, J.

1. The present petition assails the summoning order dated 27.06.2005 passed by the Ld. MM in CC No. 297/1 titled “M/s Frankfinn Management Consultants v. Subhash Motwani & Anr”.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant company is engaged in Basic Cabin Crew Training and job assistance to its trainees. It is alleged that the Petitioners started similar training courses in the name and style of M/s. Institute of Hotel Cargo and Tourism Management (IHCTM) wherein the Petitioner No. 1 is director. It is further alleged that both the petitioners are Editors of an in-house journal in the name of “Opportunities today”. The petitioners wrote and published an article in the said journal in September 2001 issue titled as “Flight of Fancy Crash Courses of Crashing Hopes”. The said article allegedly contained incorrect and defamatory content and provided a distorted picture of the complainant/respondent. The article contained material projecting the complainant/respondent No. 1 as making the students a scapegoat and thereafter extracting money from them. It is alleged that the article was published with a mala fide intent as the Petitioners and Complainant/ Respondent are competitors and was done to cause unlawful loss to the Complainant/ Respondent No. 1 and unlawful gain to the Petitioners. The Respondent No. 1 filed a Civil Suit No. 367 of 2002 for recovery of Rs. 25 lacs as damages against the Petitioner before this court on 20.08.2002. Thereafter criminal complaint dated 02.09.2003 was filed in the court of Ld. MM who after recording the pre-summing evidence summoned the Petitioners vide order dated 27.06.2005. The Complainant led pre-summoning evidence which revealed that several calls were received by the Complainant enquiring whether the contents of the article are true. The petitioner also filed a petition Crl.M.C.No. 2322 of 2006 under section 482 CrPC for quashing of the complaint which was dismissed by this court vide order dated 27.02.2008. Thereafter, the civil suit filed by the respondent No.1 against the petitioners was dismissed vide order dated 12.09.2008. The Ld. MM vide his order dated 07.09.2009 framed notice u/s 251 CrPC against the petitioners u/s 500/34 IPC. This petition is filed for quashing of the said complaint.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the complaint against the petitioners was not maintainable since the civil suit No. 367/2002 filed by the respondent No.1 based on same averments and evidence has already been dismissed and has attained finality. It was submitted that since the suit was dismissed on the ground that the article in question was not defamatory, the present complaint based on the same article was not maintainable. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment in Radheyshyam Kejriwal Vs. State of West Bengal & Anr., (2011) 3 SCC 581 to contend that since all that is alleged was same as in civil suit, the criminal proceedings cannot continue.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant/respondent submitted that the criminal proceedings are independent of the civil proceedings and finding of the facts recorded by the Civil Court do not have any bearing on the criminal case. Learned counsel submitted that the civil as well criminal proceedings are independent and there is no law to make finding of the Civil Court to be binding on the criminal proceedings. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment Kishan Singh Vs. Gurpal Singh & Ors., (2010) 8 SCC 775. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners also earlier filed a petition for quashing of complaint vide Crl.M.C. No. 2322/2006 under Section 482 CrPC, which came to be dismissed by this court on 27th February, 2008.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record and also gone through the judgment of this court in Civil Suit being CS (OS) 367/2002 dated 12th September, 2008 and order dated 27th February, 2008.

6. Though it would not be desirable to