1. Accused Nos.1 to 9 in CC No.45/10 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur are the petitioners herein. They filed the petition before this Court to quash Annexure A complaint and all further proceedings in CC No.45/10 of that court as regards the petitioners are concerned, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, the Code).

2. The case of the petitioners in the petition was that the first respondent was an employee of the first petitioner bank and some disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and thereafter, he was dismissed from service. While he was working at Ananthawady Branch, Tamil Nadu, he filed OP No.3000/08 before the Sub Court, Thrissur, challenging his dismissal from service as illegal. While the bank had issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act through their Deputy Manager, Regional Office, Sterling Road, Changanasseri, he challenged the same before this Court by filing Writ Petition(C) No.9619/06. On 1.8.2006, the 10th accused filed a counter affidavit in the writ petition, representing the South Indian Bank Limited. On the basis of some averments in the counter affidavit, the first respondent herein filed Annexure A complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thrissur, where he had stated as follows :

“In paragraph 4(a) of the counter affidavit, it has been averred as follows : Departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner for the alleged acts of misconduct involving defrauding a customer of the bank to the tune of Rs..3.20 lakhs and defrauding the bank to the extent of Rs.74,586/-. According to the second respondent, the above imputations leveled against him in the counter affidavit are per se defamatory and there is no iota of truth in those imputations. It has been made deliberately and in a calculative manner for the purpose of maligning and tarnishing the reputation and image of the complainant. The imputations made in the counter affidavit have been made by the accused with the knowledge that it will lower the reputation of the complainant. There is no necessity to make such an allegation in the writ petition filed by the first respondent, questioning the validity of issuance of a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. The complainant had filed a detailed appeal before the then Board of Directors against his dismissal from service, wherein he had specifically enumerated and objected to the defamatory aspects levelled against him shown in the charge-sheet. A notice was issued regarding the same to the accused persons except the 11th accused, which as an inadvertent omission. The allegations were made with an intention to defame the complainant. So, the accused have committed the offence punishable under Section 500 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.”

3. The complainant was examined and one witness was also examined as CWs 1 and 2. After considering the evidence on record, the Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance of the case against all the accused persons, including the present petitioners under Section 500 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code as CC No.45/10 and summons was issued to the petitioners and other accused persons. Even if the entire allegations are accepted on face value, there was no offence made out against the petitioners as the first petitioner is a bank and other petitioners are only the Directors of the bank, no personal imputation can be made against them for the acts alleged to have been committed by accused Nos.10 and 11. Even as per the allegations in the complaint, there is nothing mentioned about the role of accused Nos.1 to 9 in filing the counter affidavit, containing the alleged defamatory statement. It cannot be said that even assuming that such an allegation is made, it will not amount to defamation as it is only a reiteration of facts and nothing more. It is an abuse of the process of court to proceed with the complaint as against the petit