The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 195 of Cr.P.C, the bar on filing a private complaint for the offence under Section 211 I.P.C, and the assessment of harm to reputation in defamation cases.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records pertaining to the case in C.C.No.4022 of 2018 on the file of the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and quash the same.)

1. This Criminal Original Petition is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.4022 of 2018 on the file of the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.

2. The petitioner/accused in C.C.No.4022 of 2018 facing trial for the offence under Sections 211 and 500 I.P.C for the private complaint filed by the respondent, has filed this quash petition.

3. The gist of the complaint is that the respondent/complainant filed a private complaint to prosecute the petitioner/accused for having committed offences of criminal defamation, malicious prosecution and having filed false complaint against him before the Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, Chennai and got registered a case in CCB Crime No.196 of 2010 for the offence under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC, which has been closed as “Mistake of Facts”. The complainant is a professional qualified Chemical Engineer with post-graduation in Printing Technology and Management Science, studied abroad and returned from USA to India in the year 1990 and took over the administration of Kumudam Publications Private Limited (KPPL) and became a shareholder of the company in the year 1990. Later, in the year 2002, the respondent/complainant became the Managing Director of KPPL and later became the Chairman and Managing Director of the company in the year 2003. The respondent/complainant’s position as Chairman and Managing Director was unanimously approved by the Board of Directors and also in the General Body Meetings by suitably amending the articles of association of the company and the resolutions passed on 19.07.2002, 05.03.2003 and 19.03.2003. In all these meetings, the petitioner/accused, as one of the then Director of the company, signed the attendance and participated in the minutes of the meeting. The dispute arose between the petitioner/accused and the respondent/complainant, since it was found that the petitioner though born as an Indian, he acquired USA citizenship and became foreign citizen and now settled in USA. The petitioner being a foreign citizen, he is prohibited to hold shares in a media company incorporated in India. After the demise of his father, the petitioner managed to get the shares of KPPL in his name in collusion with his mother, who was previously the Managing Director of the company. The respondent/complainant advised the petitioner/accused to get legal opinion with regard to holding of shares in print media company incorporated in India and to take necessary remedial measures, since holding of shares by a foreigner would affect the KPPL. The petitioner rejected the respondent's request, on the other hand, he was really interested to sell away the company to political bosses and wind up all the assets of the company and transfer the same to USA, where he is settled. The publication company had reached great height due to the hard work and devotion towards the growth of the company by the respondent. The petitioner settled in USA and Doctor by profession had little time or no time to concentrate on the business of the company and it is known to one and all that it was the respondent, who made the company to reach such zenith in the field of publication. The petitioner with the sole aim to sell out the company to political bosses, went to an extreme step of declaring himself as the proprietor of KPPL Company, which was objected by the respondent. Through his political influence, the petitioner coerced the respondent to sell his shares of the Company and the politician, who are willing to take over the company helped the petitioner to lodge a false complaint against the respondent. On 23.04.2010, a false complaint was lodged by the petitioner to the Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, Chennai, who registered a case in C