Trichinopoly Ramaswami Ardhanani vs Kripa Shankar Bhargava

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1990 Supreme(MP) 50

1991 JLJ 365
B.M. Lal, J.
Trichinopoly Ramaswami Ardhanani and others v. Kripa Shankar Bhargava
Misc. Cr. Case No. 2752 of 1987; against order of Shri P.D. Haran, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chhindwara, passed in Cr. Case No. 1034 of 1987;
Decided on 24.1.1990.

Advocates:
S.C. Dutta for applicants; A.G. Dhande for non-applicant.

Headnote:(1) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- Ss. 202 and 204 -- stage of issuance of process to accused -- detailed enquiry on merits and demerits is not required. [Para 13
        (2) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- Ss. 482, 397/401 and 200 -- magistrate acting under section 200 -- ordinarily no interference is called for until and unless glaring defect in the order is demonstrated. [Para 13
        (3) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss. 500 and 499 -- whether accused is entitled to any exception under section 499 -- may be seen during trial of the complaint -- such entitlement cannot be seen at the stage of issuance of summons to accused person. AIR 1966 J & K 106 referred to. AIR 1971 SC 1389 followed. [Para 16
        (4) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 500 -- defamatory allegations made in plaint -- person who signed and verified the plaint alone is liable to be prosecuted. [Para 17
        (5) Criminal P.C. 1973 -- S.177 -- case under S. 500 IPC -- defamatory allegations made in plaint -- Court within whose jurisdiction the service of plaint is effected has also territorial jurisdiction. 1978 CrLJ NOC 104 (All.) relied on. [Para 19
        (6) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 500 -- defamatory allegations in pleadings, petition and affidavit etc. to be filed in Court -- amounts to offence under this provision. AIR 1966 Mad. 363 relied on. Vol. LXV Indian Cases 204 referred to. [Para 21
        ¼1½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 202 ,oa 204 && vfHk;qDr dks vknsf‘kdk tkjh djus dk izØe && xq.kkxq.k nks"kksa ij foLr`r tk¡p visf{kr ugha gSA ¿ iSjk 13

        ¼2½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 482] 397@401 ,oa 200 && /kkjk 200 ds v/khu eftLVªsV dh dkjZokbZ && tc rd vkns‘k esa lqLi"V =qfV iznf‘kZr ugha dh tk,] lk/kkj.kr% gLr{ksi vko‘;d ugha gSA ¿ iSjk 13

        ¼3½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 500 ,oa 499 && vfHk;qDr /kkjk 499 ds v/khu fdlh viokn dk gdnkj gS vFkok ugha && ;g ifjokn ds fopkj.k ds nkSjku ns[kk tk ldrk gS &&,slh gdnkjh vfHk;qDr dks leu tkjh djus ds izØe ij ugha ns[kh tk ldrhA , vkb vkj 1966 ts ,aM ds 106 fufnZ"VA , vkb vkj 1971 ,l lh 1389 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 16

        ¼4½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 500 && okn&i= esa ekugkfu dkjd vfHkdFku fd, x, && ftlus okn&i= dks gLrk{kfjr ,oa lR;kfir fd;k gS dsoy ogh O;fDr vfHk;kstu ds fy, nk;h gSA ¿ iSjk 17

        ¼5½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 177 && na-la- dh /kkjk 500 ds v/khu ekeyk && okn&i= esa ekugkfu dkjd vfHkdFku fd, x, && ml U;k;ky; dks Hkh {ks=h; vf/kdkfjrk gS ftldh vf/kdkfjrk esa okn&i= dh rkehy dh xbZ gSA 1978 fØfeuy yk tuZy ,u vks lh 104 ¼byk-½ voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 19

        ¼6½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && 500 && U;k;ky; esa Qkby fd, tkus okys vfHkopu ;kfpdk ,oa ‘kiFk&i= vkfn esa ekugkfu dkjd vfHkdFku && bl mica/k ds vijk/k dh dksfV esa vkrs gSaA , vkb vkj 1966 enzkl 363 voyafcrA oksY;we 65 bafM;u dslst 204 fufnZ"VA ¿ iSjk 21

ORDER

B.M. Lal, J. -- 1. This petition under sections 482 read with sections 397/401 Criminal Procedure Code is directed against an order dated 11.4.1987 by which the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chhindwara in Criminal Case No. 1034/87 while taking cognizance of an offence under section 500 Indian Penal Code directed issuance of process against the petitioner in accordance with provisions of section 204 Criminal Procedure Code.

2. Brief facts leading to this petition are as under:

Industrial consultancy Bureau Pvt. Ltd. Kalyan, Bombay (in short ICB Pvt. Ltd.) is a company registered under the Companies Act of which the petitioners No. 1 to 5 are directors, engineers and responsible officers.

3. The company is engaged in the business of engineering constructions. It entered into a contract with the complainant/respondent Kripa Shankar Bhargava to execute certain work on behalf of the ICB Pvt. Ltd. near Nandan site at Damua in district Chhindwara.

4. It appears that some dispute of accounts between the company and its officers on one hand and the complainant Kripa Shankar Bhargava on the other hand, arose and the same led to filing Civil Suit by the respondent Kripa Shankar valued at Rs. 6,11,300/- in the Court of First Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Chhindwara, on 22.6.1986.

5. Similarly, the petitioner ICB Pvt. Ltd. also filed a suit valued to Rs. 7,44,813.71 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in original jurisdiction on 29.7.1986 vide suit No. 2065/86.

6. After receiving writ of summons of Suit No. 2065/86 and copy of the plaint, according to Kripa Shankar Bhargava, petitioner No.1 vide para 16 of the plaint, used per se defematory imputation i.e. '... wrongfully converted ... misappropriated of some quantity of steel'.

7. According to Kripa Shankar this defamatory version led him to file a complaint-case on 21.10.1986 against the petitioners, for taking suitable action and punishing them under sections 120-B, 477-A and 500 Indian Penal Code.

8. Respondent/Complainant in the complaint case submitted that he is a progressive businessman of Chhindwara Town and commands respectable position in his home town and outside as well. Therefore, the imputation so made in para 16 of the plaint referred to above has lowered down his prestige in the estimation of his well-wishers.

9. On 10.11.1986, respondent examined himself and one Om Prakash Shukla to establish prima facie case against the petitioners and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chhindwara, by order dated 11.4.87, having found prima facie case only punishable under section 500 Indian Penal Code registered the case against the petitioners and directed issuance of process in accordance with the provisions of section 204 Criminal Procedure Code.

10. Against this order the present petitioners have come up before this Court invoking inherent and revisional powers, seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 11.4.1987 as well as the entire proceedings pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chhindwara.

11. Learned counsel Shri S.C. Dutt appearing for the petitioners made multi fold submissions one after another as under:

(a) That, so called per se defamatory words used in para 16 of the plaint have been used in good faith and the petitioners are entitled to take advantage of Exception 9 of section 499 Indian Penal Code;

(b) That, the plaint was filed by ICB Pvt. Ltd. Company and the same has been verified by petitioner No.1, Trichinopoly Ramaswami Ardhanani, therefore, the other petitioners No.2 to 5 having no nexus with the alleged use of per se defamatory words in para 16, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chhindwara exceeded in its jurisdiction in issuing process to the petitioners No.2 to 5;

(d) That, the matter in issue (Civil Suit No. 2065/86) is subjudice in Bombay High Court and, therefore, criminal proceedings pending at Chhind

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1990 Supreme(MP) 50

1991 JLJ 365B.M. Lal, J.Trichinopoly Ramaswami Ardhanani and others v. Kripa Shankar BhargavaMisc. Cr. Case No. 2752 of 1987; against order of Shri P.D. Haran, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chhindwara, passed in Cr. Case No. 1034 of 1987;Decided on 24.1.1990.

Cases Referred (2)

1991 JLJ 365
B.M. Lal, J.
Trichinopoly Ramaswami Ardhanani and others v. Kripa Shankar Bhargava
Misc. Cr. Case No. 2752 of 1987; against order of Shri P.D. Haran, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chhindwara, passed in Cr. Case No. 1034 of 1987;
Decided on 24.1.1990.