The main legal point established is that a statement is prima facie defamatory when its natural sense is defamatory, and the burden of explanation rests upon the respondent. The court also emphasized the need for due care and caution in invoking criminal proceedings.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in STC.No.31 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry.)

The petitioner, who is accused in S.T.C.No.31 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry facing trial for the offence under Section 500 of IPC, filed this quash petition.

2. The gist of the private complaint filed by the respondent is that the respondent along with his three brothers were partners in a firm, M/s.M.O.Hasan Kuthoos Maricar. The petitioner is the wife of respondent-s brother M.O.H.Aslam. Differences arose between M.O.H.Aslam on the one hand and other partners, which lead to filing of a suit in O.S.No.206 of 1978 on the file of the Sub Court, Puducherry, seeking relief of dissolution of partnership, rendition of accounts, etc. He also claimed certain properties which were set out in Schedules -A- to -E-. The case ultimately ended in a compromise before the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.4512-4513 of 1999 on 28.02.2006. As per the compromise, the respondent herein to pay a lumpsum of Rs.1 Crore including interest in full satisfaction and as final settlement of all the disputes/claims of petitioner-s husband. The petitioner-s husband acted as Power of Attorney for the petitioner and signed the compromise memo dated 21.02.2006. Since there was delay in execution of the release deed as per the compromise memo, the respondent filed a contempt petition in Contempt Petition Nos.270-271 of 2009 in Civil Appeal Nos.4512-4513 of 1999 before the Apex Court and thereupon, the release deed was executed.

3. The petitioner fully aware that Flat at No.15 of Marshall Road, Madras covered by Document No.4264 of 1980 stands in the name of Messers Uduman, Farooq and Iqbal and it figures as item No.1 in -D- Schedule property in O.S.No.206 of 1978. This being the case, in order to bring down the reputation of the respondent in the eyes of others, the petitioner caused the offending paper publication dated 23.10.2014 in Dinamalar daily newspaper through her counsel Mr.H.D.Kumaravelu. Since her counsel constituted professional misconduct, the respondent moved the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry by lodging a complaint under Section 35 of Advocates Act, 1961, in which enquiry is pending. The respondent desired of disposing of some of his properties including the Flat at No.15, Marashall Road, Chennai, but he was unable to do so on account of the paper publication in Dinamalar dated 23.10.2014. The respondent and his brothers are man with reputation, one of the brother was the Former Chief Minister of Puducherry on three occasions, Ambassador of India in Saudi Arabi, Governor of Jharkhand and Kerala. The respondent-s son-in-law was a MLA for two terms and a Minister for five years in the Cabinet of Union Territory of Puducherry. The respondent is carrying such a reputation and on the other hand, giving such public notice in Dinamalar with imputation caused defamation of the respondent-s fame and name. One Thiruvengadam, who was dealing with the property scouting for prospective buyers, questioned the respondent about the publication and the prospective buyers made an allegation that suppressing the pendency of civil suit, the property was negotiated for sale, which caused damage to his name. The petitioner after giving up claim over the property by way of compromise memo filed before the Apex Court, which was effected with ill motive issued such public notice under the garb of property is subject matter in civil suit pending in O.S.No.286 of 1978, for dissolving M/s.Crystal Transport Private Limited wherein the respondent, his three brothers, wife of one of his brother and the petitioner are partners, made publication with dishonest and without any bonafide.

4. A decree was passed in the said civil suit O.S.No.286 of 1978 on 23.04.2004, against which, A.S.No.328 of 2005 was filed and other partners filed cross o