ORDER :

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the Criminal Proceedings initiated by the respondent against the petitioner under Section 499 r/w 500 IPC, pending in C.C.No.1041 of 2018, on the file of the VII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town, Chennai.

2. The brief facts that are necessary for the purpose of deciding this criminal original petition are :

2.1. The respondent filed a Civil Suit in C.S.No.400 of 2015, before this Court for mandatory injunction directing the petitioner herein to take action against one Kasthuri Raja, for using the petitioner’s name, without the petitioner’s consent and for other alternative/consequential reliefs. In the said suit, the petitioner filed an application in A.No.4747 of 2015, seeking to reject the plaint. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, the petitioner had made the following allegations against the respondent: “the suit has been intended to malign and defame me and extort money”. This affidavit filed by the petitioner was widely published in many newspapers and was also circulated in the media and television channels and thereby the respondent’s reputation was completely damaged in the society, business circle, and also in the friends circle. Therefore, the respondent proceeded to file a criminal complaint for defamation against the petitioner. The Court below has taken cognizance of the complaint and issued summons to the petitioner, and the same is now put to challenge before this Court in this quash petition.

3. Mr.D.Ravichander, learned counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions:

The averment made in the pleadings cannot be termed to be a defamatory statement unless the same is struck off by the Civil Court.

The rejection of plaint petition itself came up for hearing before this Court, and this Court by an order dated 24.07.2018, allowed the petition and rejected the suit filed by the respondent. Therefore, there is nothing further to proceed in the criminal complaint since this Court had accepted the case put forth by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the rejection of plaint petition. The finding of this Court, while allowing the petition will have a lot of bearing upon the criminal complaint filed by the respondent.

The averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit was totally relevant and warranted in the facts of the case, and the same was affirmed by this Court by allowing the petition filed by the petitioner seeking to reject the plaint.

The learned counsel for the petitioner in order to substantiate his arguments relied upon the judgment of this Court in Alli Raji Joseph Mathew 2. Dr.P.Anandha Geetha 3. Anu Velentina Krishnan @ Tina 4. P.Amarnath .Vs. P. Arun Kumar, reported in [2013 (1) CTC 661].

4. Per contra, Mr.M.Gagan Bothra, the Power of Attorney Agent of the respondent made the following submissions:

The allegation made in the affidavit is per se defamatory and by publishing the same in newspapers and circulating the same in media and television channels, the reputation of the respondent was completely damaged.

Whether the publication was made in the newspapers, media etc., is with or without the knowledge of the petitioner can be found out only during the course of the trial, and the same cannot be determined in the quash proceedings.

As against the order allowing the rejection of plaint petition and dismissing the suit, the respondent has filed an appeal, and therefore the cause of action survives in the criminal complaint filed by the respondent.

The following judgments were relied upon by the Power of Attorney agent, representing the respondent in order to substantiate the above arguments.

1. Mr.Mohanadevi Vs. Dr.C.V.Ranjan in Crl.O.P.No.21114 of 2014 dt.12.02.2015, by this Court.

2. Jeffrey J.Diermeier and Another .Vs. State of West Bengal and Another reported in [2010 6 SCC 243 ].

3. M.N.Damani .Vs. S.K.Sinha And Others in Crl.A.No.596 of 2001, dt.02.05.2001, by Hon’ble Supreme Court.

4.