IMPORTANT POINT
In case of criminal defamation neither can any FIR be filed nor can any direction be issued under section 156(3) CrPC. The offence has its own gravity and hence, the responsibility of the Magistrate is more.

A.Y. KOGJE, J.

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is filed praying inter-alia for quashing and setting aside the order dated 26.06.2006 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 9, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No. 822 of 2006, by which the Magistrate was pleased to issue process against the petitioners for offences under Sections 500 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The brief facts are as under:-

2.1 The petitioners had filed a private complaint before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahesana alleging that the petitioners are engaged in the business of selling of agricultural produces in the Marketing Yard and on 22.07.2007, had sold goods to a firm which was administered by one Dayabhai Patel and his colleagues. There was purchase of other commodities also and the said transaction was as per the settled practice of the business. However, in the said transaction, the petitioners were duped and though goods were sold, they did not receive any payment and therefore, the complaint of cheating was filed.

2.2 In the said complaint of cheating, the petitioners had referred to one Shri Baldevbhai Patel, who was partner in M/s. Dayabhai Bhikhabhai Patel firm and had given his addressed as C/o M/s. Rajesh Mehta and Company. In the said complaint, said Shri Baldevbhai Patel was also shown to be associated with M/s. Rajesh Mehta and Company.

2.3 It is this association of said Shri Baldevbhai Patel shown with M/s. Rajesh Mehta and Company which became subject matter of filing of the present complaint. The present complaint was submitted in writing on 18.01.2006 before the Court No. 9 of Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad and it is alleged in the said complaint that the petitioners, who are complainants of private complaint being Police Inquiry Case No. 39 of 2005, though knowing fully well that said Shri Baldevbhai Patel or M/s. Dayabbai Bhikhabhai Patel had no connection with M/s. Rajesh Mehta and Company, a proprietary firm, still with a view to defame M/s. Rajesh Mehta and Company and its proprietor, have deliberately associated their names in the complaint. It is also alleged in the said complaint that this fact was highlighted and published in various newspapers also. As a result of such action, one of the customers of the complainant (respondent No. 2 herein) discontinued the business by addressing a letter, stating that the reason for discontinuing the business is the publication in newspapers.

2.4 On such complaint filed, the Court was initially pleased to order inquiry under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code and thereafter by the impugned order dated 26.06.2006, issued process under Section 204 of the Code. It is at that stage that the petitioners have approached this Court for quashing the order of issuance of process.

3. This Court vide order dated 18.04.2012 was pleased to issue Rule and grant interim relief in terms of para-7(C), thereby staying the further proceedings in connection with Criminal Case No. 822 of 2006.

4. Heard learned Advocate Shri Ankit Shah for the petitioners, learned Advocate Shri Mahesh Poojara for respondent No. 2-original complainant and Ms. Hansa Punani for respondent No. 1-State.

5. Learned Advocate Shri Ankit Shah for the petitioners contended that considering the allegations made in the complaint, no ingredients of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code are made out so as to attract the offence under Section 500 or any other offence as alleged in the written complaint. He submitted that insofar as respondent No. 2-complainant is concerned, it is now a matter of knowledge to everybody that serious offences have been registered against him with CID (Crimes), Gandhinagar and he has been charge sheeted for offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. He submitted that the respondent No. 2 had approached this Court for quashing of the charge sheet by filing Special