The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of mens rea for constituting the offence of defamation under Sections 499 and 500 IPC.

JUDGMENT

Md. Akram Chowdhary, J. - This petition has been filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashment of the order dated 20.09.2022 (for short 'impugned order') passed by the court of learned Special Mobile Magistrate PT & E Srinagar in a Criminal Complaint No. 2/2022 titled M/S Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs. M/S Rashmi Metaliks Ltd. & Ors., under Sections 499, 500 IPC, wherein the petitioners-accused persons were found involved in the commission of offence punishable under Section 500 IPC.

2. It has been claimed that the petitioner-Company is one of the largest manufacturers of ductile iron (DI) pipes and, as such, is providing the same throughout the country for transporting drinking water and for sanitation systems with excellent quality.

3. Petitioners/accused pleaded following facts:-

i) That, the Government of J&K through the office of Chief Engineer, Jal Shakti (PHE) department Kashmir issued e-NIT bearing No.JSD/PHE-K/JJM/e-tender/2021-22/127 dated 14.01.2022 inviting e-tenders on item rate basis in two cover system from Govt. registered/GEM approved OEM's (Original Equipment Manufacturers only) for supply of ISI marked centrifugally cast (spun) duct iron pipes conforming to IS: 8329/2000 read with upto date amendments for water application in assorted sizes and classes and have supplied such items in India and possess satisfactory performance and excellent track record in the said field with documentary evidence from respective Govt./Semi Govt. Departments /PSU's/Corporations/State or national level undertakings for the subject item.

ii) That, as many as eight companies including petitioner-Company and respondent-Company participated in the tendering process. Amongst them two bidders were excluded from the tendering process as they failed to qualify the technical bid in the tendering process.

iii) That, the petitioner-Company, being the lowest bidder in ductile iron e-procurement bagged the e-tender.

4. It was further pleaded that a complaint came to be filed by respondent No. 2 herein, wherein it was alleged that one Manesh Kumar, Senior Vice President (Marketing) of M/S Jindal Saw Ltd. attempted bid rigging as the said person was also holding the post of Director of DISPUN Research & Development Association and by resorting to fraud and misrepresentation tried to compromise the entire bidding process in favour of his company i.e., respondent No.1. He was also carrying out negative campaign against the petitioner-Company in every State in the capacity of Director of DISPUN Research & Development Association regarding the quality issues in supply of DI pipes by the petitioner company only to keep the petitioner company out of the competition and make way for award of contract in favour of his company.

5. It was alleged that when the Development Commissioner(Works) U.T. Level Purchase Committee failed to take action against the said person for violation of the code of integrity of the bid process, the respondent No.2 filed a complaint before the court of 2nd Addl. Munsiff Srinagar, wherein allegation about rigging in the bidding process were made. The court, vide order dated 23.04.2022, ordered an enquiry and directed Crime Branch to investigate the matter. Accordingly, the authorities successfully prevented the alleged bid-rigging and ensured a fool proof tendering process in a fair and transparent manner.

6. It was further alleged that in retaliation to the complaint filed by respondent No.2 against one Manesh Kumar, who happened to be Senior Vice President (Marketing) of M/S Jindal Saw Ltd., for allegedly compromising the entire bidding process in favour of his company (respondent No.1), who filed complaint under Section 499, 500 IPC against the petitioner-Company along-with proforma respondents herein wherein allegations about defamatory and libellous statements have been made, the defamatory statements have been published by the proforma respondent No.3 against the respondent No.1 at the behest of and in connivance with the profor