The main legal point established in the judgment is the immunity of legal professionals while representing their clients in court, as well as the interpretation of defamatory statements in the context of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records and quash the complaint in CC.No.5095 of 2019 on the file of XVII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Chennai, insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

Crl.OP.No.5115 of 2020.

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records and quash the criminal complaint in CC.No.5095 of 2019 on the file of XVII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Chennai.)

1. These criminal original petitions have been filed to quash the proceedings in CC.No.5095 of 2019 on the file of the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, having been taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 500, 192 r/w 34 of IPC.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners in Crl.OP.No.5115 of 2020 submitted that the petitioners are arrayed as A1, A3 to A5 in the complaint lodged by the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 500, 192 r/w 34 of IPC. The first petitioner is the former Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of Indian Overseas Bank, the second petitioner is the former Assistant General Manager of Central Bank of India and the third petitioner is the General Manager, attached to the Central Office of IOB and the fourth petitioner is the Assistant General Manager of IOB attached to Zonal Office, Chennai. He further submitted that the appointment and removal of Resolution Professional(hereinafter called as RP) is provided under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. In Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process(hereinafter called as CIRP), the interest of the creditors and the stakeholders is paramount. Since the Committee of Creditors(hereinafter called as COC) may compromise of several institutions, to manage the CIRP the Code provides appointment of RP. However, he cannot act independently and he has to act upon the guidelines of COC and his actions are subject to the approval of COC. Therefore, COC unanimously resolved to remove the respondent and appointed another RP. Therefore, the decision taken by the COC which comprises of 5 financial institutions and as such removal cannot be termed as defamatory.

2.1 He further submitted that COC comprises of the financial creditors and they are exercising the statutory powers conferred under the provisions of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code(hereinafter called IBC). Therefore the action taken under the IBC would not amount to any offence. The COC have statutory powers under IBC to replace Resolution Professional and they can very well appoint other RP. In fact the respondent challenged the order passed by the COC before this Court by way of writ petition and the same was dismissed and aggrieved by the same, he also filed writ appeal and the said writ appeal was also dismissed. Thereafter approached the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal and the same was also dismissed. The respondent completely suppressed all those details and lodged the present impugned complaint. The learned Magistrate also without even looking into the allegations made in the complaint, mechanically had taken cognizance and issued summons to the petitioners. The petitioners are being public servants and they vested with statutory duty conferred under the IBC and no sanction of the Government was obtained to prosecute them. Even according to the respondent, the petitioners did not make any statement, thereby detaining the respondent herein. In fact, COC had acted in the interest of the institutions, in which they represented and safeguard the public funds. Therefore, there is absolutely no iota of material to attract the offence under Section 500 of IPC. He also relied upon the judgment in the case of K.Virupaksha and others Vs State of Karnataka and others reported in (2020) 4 SCC 440.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.OP.No.4669 of 2020 would submit that the petitioner is arrayed as A2. He is practicing advocate with more than 28 years of experience representing various ba