Defamation claims require cautious judicial consideration, ensuring that they are not used for personal vendetta and must examine intent behind communications that may harm reputation.

JUDGMENT

Yogesh Khanna, J. This petition is filed with the following prayers:

"a. Quash the summoning order dated 03.10.2020 passed by the Ld.Metropolitan Magistrate-02, South, Saket District Court in CC No.12501/2018;

b. Quash the CC No.12501/2018 filed by the Respondent herein for the alleged offences U/S 499/500 Indian Penal Code, 1860, pending before the Saket District Court;

c. Pass any such other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case."

2. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner vide impugned order dated 03.10.2020, the learned Magistrate has summoned the petitioner under Section 500 IPC but the complaint is nothing but a mean to wreck personal vengeance on the petitioner with an intention to use it as an instrument of harassment, oppression and vendetta to harass him.

3. It is alleged the respondent was appointed as a Chief Executive Officer in Schneider Prototyping India Private Limited (hereinafter referred as SPIN) from 2012 to June 2018 and has misused his position; falsified the books of account; made false entries and has misappropriated substantial amount of money from SPIN, the company in which he was employed. He was in-charge of the day-to-day operations of SPIN at the helm of affairs and he left it in deep financial distress. 'SPIN' subsequently to ascertain the manner in which the respondent had committed misappropriation/siphoning of funds, carried out an extensive forensic audit and an audit report 'Special Investigation Audit Report' dated 25.09.2019 show misappropriation and siphoning of funds done by the respondent to an extent of Rs.21,34,44,127 and the same is recoverable. CS (OS) No.92/2020 is also filed against the respondent herein. The said suit was closed later. Further, FIR No.819/2018 dated 14.11.2018 is also registered against the respondent under Section 406, 420 IPC at police station Phase-II, District Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida wherein charge sheet under Section 406/420 IPC is filed. It is alleged the complaint is filed only to harass the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel referred to Subramanian Swamy vs. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 221 wherein it was held:

207. xxx At that stage the court would be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all the relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process lest it would be an instrument in the hands of the private complaint as vendetta to harass the persons needlessly. Vindication of majesty of justice and maintenance of law and order in the society are the prime objects of criminal justice but it would not be the means to wreak personal vengeance.

5. In Rajib Ranjan vs R. Vijaykumar, (2015) 1 SCC 513 it was held:

"46. The court must ensure that criminal prosecution is not used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendetta or with an ulterior motive to pressurise the accused. On analysis of the aforementioned cases, we are of the opinion that it is neither possible nor desirable to lay down an inflexible rule that would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. Inherent jurisdiction of the High Courts under Section 482 CrPC though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when it is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the statute itself and in the aforementioned cases. In view of the settled legal position, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained."

6. In S. Kh