Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 1702
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. Nirmal Kumar, J.
N. Raghav Reddy - Petitioner
Versus
Ashok Giri - Respondent
Crl.O.P. No. 28079 of 2013 & Crl.M.P. No. 1 of 2013
Decided On : 13-09-2019
For the Petitioner:Swamidoss Manoharan, Advocate.
For the Respondent: S. Ananthanarayanan, Senior Counsel.
The judgment establishes the importance of considering exemptions under Section 499 IPC and the requirement of tangible material to proceed against an accused, highlighting the principle of preventing abuse of process of law.
Headnote:
Abuse of Process of Law - Criminal Complaint - Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Sections 499 and 500 of IPC - Exemptions 7 and 8 of Section 499 IPC
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an accused in a private complaint, sought to quash the proceedings against him for offences under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC. The respondent, a reputed businessman, alleged that the petitioner filed false complaints, stage-managed his arrest, and tarnished his image through media publicity.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the news telecast and publication of the respondent's arrest fell under exemptions 7 and 8 of Section 499 IPC. It also noted the lack of tangible material to proceed against the petitioner, leading to the conclusion that the continuation of the case would amount to an abuse of process of law. Consequently, the proceedings were quashed, and the petition was allowed.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the alleged false complaints, media publicity, and abuse of process of law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the application of exemptions 7 and 8 of Section 499 IPC to the news telecast and publication. It also considered the lack of tangible material to proceed against the petitioner, leading to the finding of an abuse of process of law.
Final Decision: The proceedings in C.C.No.3104 of 2013 were quashed, and the Criminal Original Petition was allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in C.C.No.3104 of 2013 on the file of the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet and quash the same.
1. The petitioner is an accused in a private complaint filed by the respondent for the offence under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC, pending on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet as C.C.No.3104 of 2013.
2. The gist of the case is that the respondent is the son of reputed Army officer and he hails from a reputed family. His great grand father is a poet, who pioneered national freedom struggle. The respondent was running a company under the name and style of M/s. Laserwords Private Limited employing more than 600 persons along with his friend Balagopalan Menon for about two decades. The petitioner got acquainted with the respondent during the parents meeting of their respective children. Due to acquaintance, friendship developed between them and the petitioner has taken loan for his business from the respondent. Though initially he was prompt in repaying the loan, thereafter he was in default. The respondent was called to join the business of the petitioner since he was unable to pay dues to the loans. The respondent joined the business, but he was unable to control the entire business, because all the employees hailed from the village of the petitioner and they were more loyal to the petitioner than to the respondent.
3. Thereafter difference of opinion arose between the petitioner and the respondent and by way of compromise, the company of the petitioner was taken over by the respondent with liabilities. Thereafter due to certain delay in compliance of conditions of contract, the petitioner gave a complaint to Central Crime Branch, Chennai against the respondent which came to be registered in Crime No.5 of 2011 on 06.01.2011. During investigation MOU dated 12.01.2011 was entered between them and the complaint was withdrawn by the petitioner. Thereafter they entered into a Share Purchase Agreement and Escrow Agreement on 05.02.2011. As per the agreement there was mutual obligations between the petitioner and the respondent. Since both of them were in default, the agreement could not be completed as contemplated, for which again another complaint was given by the petitioner on 26.03.2012 and a case in Crime No.163 of 2012 came to be registered by the Central Crime Branch, Chennai. On registration of the case the respondent was arrested and his news of the arrest, the photographs and the gist of the case came to be flashed in various TV channels viz., Shakshi TV and TV-9 and also in newspapers describing the respondent as “Ashok Giri Mr.420 in Chennai”. Further there was an inherent conspiracy by the petitioner with TV channels and the newspapers “The Hindhu” daily, Magazines “Kazhugu”. Interview of the petitioner was available in the Internet, which caused irreparable damage on the reputation and the character of the respondent. Hence the respondent filed a private complaint before the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet.
4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent has approached the petitioner with an Idea of having partnership in his business with an ulterior motive to swindle huge sums of money from the petitioner. The petitioner on coming to know about the evil design of the respondent has lodged a complaint before Central Crime Branch earlier which came to be registered in Crime No.5 of 2011. During investigation the respondent voluntarily gave an undertaking that he would return and pay the entire money due to the petitioner. Thereafter, he filed another complaint in Crime No.163 of 2012. On investigation charge sheet has been filed, which is pending before the competent Court.
5. As regards the broadcast by the TV channels namely Shakshi TV and TV-9 they had only telecasted the facts of the case on 27.04.2012. The petitioner has noth
