An imputation made in good faith for the protection of one's interest does not constitute defamation under the 9th Exception to Section 499 RPC.

1. The petitioner filed writ petition registered as OWP No. 464/2010 titled Ashok Singh Manhas v. M/s Shiva Overseas and ors. wherein the present respondent figured as Respondent no. 4. The petitioner in the writ petition made following averments:-

"That the respondent no. 1 prepared a forged document of partnership with the help of respondent no. 4 in which the petitioner is shown partner of the firm M/s Shiva Overseas 33-GC/C, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, whereas the petitioner have found out from the reliable sources and the habitant of the locality such firm never existed in the area. In addition to that making partner in the Shiva Overseas a mortgage deed was executed on 22.4.2008, registered on 25.4.2008 with the Sub Registrar Municipal Magistrate, Jammu by impersonation showing the petitioner as having registered the Mortgage Deed as collateral security vide which the land measuring 4 kanals 5 marlas comprising in Khasra No. 90 min, Khata No. 12 min and Khewat No. 1 situated at Village Chak Changerwan Tehsil and District Jammu against the stocks of the M/s Shiva Overseas and obtained loan of Rs. 50 lacs from respondents No. 3.

That the petitioners came to know when the respondent no. 3 issued a notice bearing No. JMU/ Adv./ 70/ 2009-10 issued by UCO Bank branch Jammu under postal certificate. The petitioner's wife was seriously ill and he was busy in her treatment. Petitioner filed a suit in the court of Principal District Judge, Jammu titled Ashok Singh Manhas v. MS Shiva Overseas and another which was transferred to the Court of Sub Judge, Jammu. Before filing suit respondent no. 4 met to the petitioner in the court premises and enquired as to what for the petitioner has come to the court. The petitioner told that somebody has impersonated him and got mortgage deed of my land and against that Rs. 50 lacs loan has been secured from respondent No. 3 and have committed the fraud.

That the respondent no. 4 kept watch and saw when the case was transferred to the court of Sub Judge Jammu for trial, he approached to the Sub Judge Jammu and the notice was issued to the respondent no. 3 and thereafter Mr. Kuldip Singh Puri, Advocate appeared for the respondent no. 3. Thereafter the court ordered him to file the written statement and the interim direction was not issued.

That respondent no. 1 in connivance with respondent no. 4 and the Bank authorities got open the account for the purpose of partnership in the respondent bank and received cheques, encashed cheques and draw the money, whereas physically sthere was not Firm M/s Shiva Overseas though its Proprietor Sh. Uttam Chand. The petitioner enquired from all over and found that the Firm never existed.

Likewise the respondents 1 and 4 have committed forgery with the Bank as well as with the petitioner by impersonation produced some another person who happened to sign like the petitioner and he represented in the bank as well as in the Court for registering the document.

That the transaction with the Bank is a fake transaction and forged transaction. The malafide of the respondents 1 and 4 is on the face of it."

2. The respondent aggrieved that the allegations levelled against him in the aforementioned writ petition was a wilful act on part of the petitioner to lower down his image in the society, filed a criminal complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class (Passenger Tax, Jammu) alleging commission of offence punishable under section 499, 500 and 501 RPC by the petitioner. The Trial Magistrate recorded satisfaction that the complaint and the statement of the complainant and the witness prima-facie disclosed commission of offences punishable under section 499, 500 RPC and issued process against the petitioner.

3. The petitioner through medium of instant petition seeks quashment of the proceedings pending before the Trial Magistrate, in exercise of powers under section 561-A CrPC. The grounds urged in the petition are that the alleged imputation neither directly nor indirectly l

Click Here to Read the rest of this document