Back
2015 Supreme(MP) 931
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sujoy Paul, J.
Suman Sehgal v. Santosh Dhakad and another
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.2078 of 2014 (Gwalior) : against the order dated 4.12.2013, passed by JMFC Guna by which cognizance of matter was taken; Decided on 30.9.2015.
Raju Sharma for petitioner;
Rajnish Sharma for respondent No.1;
None for respondent No.2.
Headnote:Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss.499, 500 and 501 -- Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S.482 -- complaint under -- cognizance taken by JMFC -- challenged -- maintainability of same -- safely concluded that petition maintainable -- objection regarding same overruled -- no averment or material of impeccable quality to arraigne present petitioner -- no material to show that petitioner knowingly published said article in order to maligrimage of complainant -- material filed by complainant not sufficient to take cognizance against petitioner -- Court below taken cognizance mechanically -- criminal complaint set aside.
Held : n view of this authoritative and well considered judgment, it can be safely concluded that the present petition under section 482 CrPC is maintainable.
In the light of aforesaid, in my view, the Court below has taken cognizance against the petitioner mechanically. There was no impeccable averment/material on the strength of which cognizance against the petitioner could have been taken. (2013)15 SCC 624 followed. AIR 1941 Pat. 9, 2014(9) SCALE 690, (1998)5 SCC 749, (2013)3 SCC 330, (1977)4 SCC 551, (2004)7 SCC 338, (2004)13 SCC 324, (2009)2 SCC 370 and (2011)14 SCC 615 referred to. (2009)11 SCC 529, (2008)14 SCC 1, (2009)1 SCC 516, (2012)1 SCC 520, (1998)1 SCC 692, (1999)3 SCC 134, (2013)10 SCC 591 and (2014)3 SCC 389 distinguished.
naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 499] 500 rFkk 501 & naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 482 & mica/k ds v/khu ifjokn & izFke oxZ eftLVsªV }kjk laKku & vk{ksfir & mlh dh iks"k.kh;rk & lqjf{kr fu"d"kZ fd ;kfpdk iks"k.kh; & blds laca/k esa vk{ksi ukeatwj & bl ;kph ij nks"kkjksi.k djus ds fy, =qfVghu xq.k dk dksbZ izdFku ;k lkexzh ugha & ;g nf'kZr djus ds fy, dksbZ lkexzh ugha fd ;kph us tkucw>dj ifjoknh dh Nfo dks vfgrdj cukus ds fy, dfFkr ys[k izdkf'kr fd;k & ifjoknh }kjk izLrqr lkexzh ;kph ds fo:} laKku ysus ds fy, i;kZIr ugha & fupys U;k;ky; }kjk ;kaf=dh; :i ls laKku fy;k x;k & nkafMd ifjokn vfHk[kafMrA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % bl izkf/kd`r rFkk lqfopkfjr fu.kZ; dks ns[krs gq,] ;g lqjf{kr :i ls fu"d"kZ fudyk tk ldrk gS fd izLrqr ;kfpdk naM izfdz;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 482 ds v/khu iks"k.kh; gSA
iwoksZDr dks ns[krs gq, esjh jk; esa fupys U;k;ky; us ;kph ds fo:} ;kaf=dh; :i ls laKku fy;k gS] nks"kkjksi.k djus okyk dksbZ izdFku@lkexzh ugha Fkh ftlds vk/kkj ij ;kph ds fo:} laKku fy;k x;kA ¼2013½ 15 ,l lh lh 624 vuqlfjrA , vkb vkj 1941 iVuk 9] 2014 ¼9½ Ldsy 690] ¼1999½ 5 ,l lh lh 749] ¼2013½ 3 ,l lh lh 330] ¼1977½ 1 ,l lh lh 551] ¼2004½ 7 ,l lh lh 338] ¼2004½ 13 ,l lh lh 324] ¼2009½ 2 ,l lh lh 370 rFkk ¼2011½ 14 ,l lh lh 615 fufnZ"VA ¼2009½ 11 ,l lh lh 529] ¼2008½ 14 ,l lh lh 1] ¼2009½ 1 ,l lh lh 516] ¼2012½ 1 ,l lh lh 520] ¼1998½ 1 ,l lh lh 692] ¼1999½ 3 ,l lh lh 134] ¼2013½ 10 ,l lh lh 591 rFkk ¼2014½ 3 ,l lh lh izHksfnrA
1. The petitioner, an Assistant General Manager (Public Relations and Community Service Banking) of State Bank of India, invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for quashing the Criminal Complaint No. 2527/2013.
2. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of this matter are that the State Bank of India (Bank) published a magazine namely “Akanksha” from Bhopal Circle, strictly for internal circulation amongst the employees of the Bank. Being Assistant General Manager (Public Relations), the petitioner was entrusted with the duty to function as Editor of said magazine. Certain other officers assisted him as Assistant Editor, etc. The magazine was published and circulated amongst the staff members.
3. In March 2013 Issue of said magazine, a short story namely, “Charitra” was published. The said story was written by respondent No.2. He sent this story to the Editor along with a letter dated 6.3.2013 (Annexure P-1). In this letter, he certified that the short story “Charitra” is an imaginary creation. It has no relation with any existing or dead person. The petitioner published the said article. He believed that declaration is true and story sent by respondent No.2 is imaginary and it does not have any real connection with any existing character/person. It is further submitted that respondent No.1 was not known to the petitioner.
4. The petitioner received a legal notice on 4.7.2013, which was sent by respondent No.1. In the notice, it is alleged that the said story published in the magazine is directly related to respondent No.1. It has been published with malafide intention to lower down the image of respondent No.1 in the society. The petitioner replied the notice and denied the allegation. He explained that there was no such intention to malign anybody’s image. In view of declaration received by him, he genuinely believed that story is imaginary and it has no relation with any person – live or dead.
5. Respondent No.1 filed criminal complaint for offences under sections 500 and 501 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) before Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Guna. The Court below took cognizance of the matter by impugned order dated 4.12.2013.
6. Shri Raju Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the necessary ingredients for attracting section 499 IPC are not available. As per the averments of complaint, no case is made out for taking cognizance against the petitioner. The Court below has taken cognizance as a matter of routine and without proper application of mind. During the course of argument, relied on (1977)4 SCC 551 (Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra); (2004)7 SCC 338 (Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal and others); (2004)13 SCC 324 (Subramanium Sethuraman v. State of Maharashtra); (2009)2 SCC 370 (Dhariwal Tobaco Products Ltd. and others v. State of Maharashtra); (2011)14 SCC 615 (Punjab State Warehousing Corp. Faridkot v. Durga Ji Traders and others), and (2013)10 SCC 591 (Umesh Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh), to contend that against the order, by which cognizance is taken by the Court below, this petition under section 482 CrPC is maintainable. He submits that defence documents can also be seen in certain special circumstances. Lastly, it is submitted that in absence of any mens rea, no cognizance could have been taken. He relied on certain judgments in this regard.
7. Shri Rajnish Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No.1, on the other hand, heavily relied on (1999)3 SCC 134 (Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande and others v. Uttam and another). On the strength of this judgment, it is urged that against the order taking cognizance by Court below, a revision would lie under section 397 of CrPC. This petition under section 482 is not tenable. He relied on (2013)10 SCC 591 (Umesh Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another) (supra), and (2014)3 SCC 389 (Vijayander Kumar and others v. State of Rajasthan and another) to submit that defence documents cannot
