Karnataka High Court
Smt. Lata Purohit W/O S.K. Purohit, vs Katterao S/O Shyamarao Deshpande, on 4 August, 2011
This criminal petition is rueeinndeliseenen 4282; Cr.P.C seeking to quash the C-Zrderpdated A' passed in P.C.No.2l/2005 by"gthe"Prin'ci_pa.l' Gangavathi at Annexure-D._' _ V- This criminal petition'comingll'onlfolr dictating orders this day, the _Court:ma_de_ the fol1o'wing;..'? This petition A,i.s.»._fivled_Aseeking-.i._*-t'o quash the proceedings 2 /2120005""('€:.C.No.25l /2005) pendingon JMFC, Gangavati. 2." herein has filed a complaint before' the 28.07.2005 alleging the commission. of~the'-offences under Sections 500 and ' iiiii "Section 34 of IPC against the it.petiit.io"ne'1's'~and one Sri. Venkataramaiah, Deputy '(}enetali'----_.l"»/Slanager of Canara Bank, Custorner's Service Section. The learned Magistrate has 22 '..dis'missed the said complaint by the order dated 24.10.2009. The complainant approached the Sessions Court' in Crirninal Revision Petition No.2/2010 and by the order dated 08.01.2010, the //7 learned Sessions Judge, Koppal has set order dated 24.10.2009 and directed the' Magistrate to record the swo<rr1----statem_e'ritl loft' vthe7.. complainant and pass the order that day itself without 'lion 10.08.2010, the learned M~aéi'str%dt_e he's--pase§ed the impugned order which , «Heard 'A'-and of the materfialsfl~apailal5leVlonl I am of the Uieip made out a prima ample materials to accused persons. Hence, I proceed to "thlel following: _ l X V' 'A ORDER I Thé'vveon1plaint filed by the complainant .,Section 200 of Cr. PC is hereby allowed. is directed to register a criminal case _ the accused persons in Register No.11] for " the offences punishable under Sections 500, 420 HR/w. Section 34 of [PC and issue summons to the accused persons, ifthe complainant complies with Sub--Section 2 to 4 of Sec. 204 of Cr.P.C. " -4- The petitioners have challenged the of taking cognizance and issuance of process .againlst._f them. 3. Heard Sri. Mahabarleshvslar llHas1*nlal;.'learriedl Counsel appearing for the peltitioners an«d_Sri_.i§Arvind Kulkarni, learned :, l"apV'p_e'a--ring for the respondent.
4. "The:-4"'learned':fCoun*seii'.; "for the petitioners submits onléa perusal of the entire materials on record, no of'fenc.e*is"made" out against the petitioners under Section~75Of) Il3C as there is absolutely no Agdefani'iatoi'i*y& material made out against the ifpeti'tioii.ersf-ffhe petitioners submit that they being the b_ai1l;§.:l~"officials have acted in discharge of their .A official "duties and in the course of the performance of l 'g_lt'he'l said official duties, a letter was addressed to the "respondent stating that his complaint made before the higher authorities was false and that the / respondent has misbehaved with the bank of the various banks. The contents letter is neither per-se defamavtoiry"'norz_irn'pn'tes._a'riy false allegations against the respor1dent,gg'biit" it isfal V statement of fact made basivs~.oi"
conducted by them; :.st.i'b'mits thatuthere is no element of aria'.iZi_1i7._i.'perusing the entire "learned Magistrate, the not have taken cogr;iaanceipf.vC/,f Section 420 IPC againsathe furthersubrnits that the ordc--r_passe.o1'by' the learned Magistrate does not at _al'l idi"scu'"ss__ as the offence under Section 500 is made out and it is a clear abuse of . ip.rocess':oE*f'l'aw in allowing the private complaint and issiiing the process against the petitioners. Hence he * siibmits that the entire proceedings in P.C.No.2l /2005 are liable to be quashed. /?
-6-
5. The learned Counsel for the the other hand submits that.tehe_pet1itiovne.1§s 0al.o:ng"., V with Venkataramaiah, accu ' this Court in Criminal and this Court had Vquasheidflitihed"-a,proceedingis and thereafter, directed' .:l\/iagistrate for recording thrziiyjvs-fzvorfirifl complainant and the learned M 21g:1'5tr'ateA: " -- ' statement of th e witnesyses V 'process. Under the circ_umstanc'es,_f.he, submits that in View of the <":'Li\/:t:§'I"}'2lA1--'.:31'1'£.SA.. mxad"e'""iVn the letter dated 20.10.2003, singe:d._0bygi0}/enkataramaiah, accused No.1, the eompla.in'a,1iCt has made out a ground for an offence under__d*Section 500 lPC. He submits that the words v.d,"L1sied in the letter dated 20.10.2003 are per«se defamatory. He further submits that the reply sent to the Counsel for the complainant by the Counsel for the accused/petitioners also contains the words % -7- that the complainant is a sinner, which is also pelrelse defamatory. Hence he submit that the liable to be dismissed, thus continu:i~nig'~V:: the proceedings before the trial Court. 3
6. On a careful per=.'is'a.l of the entirel"nia,teri_.alsi on record, it is seen th_a_t"-..the_ cornplainant had originally filed a complia.iAntgo?n:Vlli8{jl0L'2.Q03 before the Chairman of_:th_e Canara; 0ffice stating that the. Bank i.e., the petitionerl"'~.l§lloi'12;:A: .:::be'einlWuhnecessarily creating trouib,le'-- performing his duties, which of a bank. The copy o'f~Zt,h:eii'said let'ter____was sent by the complainant to the V ll"-i--on"b_le :Mii'r'i;i_ster for Finance, Government of India, Reserve Bank of India, Divisional Manager, Canara Bank among others. The accused Venkataramaiah has given reply dated 20.10.2003 stating that the respondent is in the habit of making false allegations and also »% misbehaved with the bank managers banks. The said letter refers to..the_4co1npllainl.t~ol"tli€ respondent dated 18.10.20:O3 Gangavathi branch in was the Branch Manager.~dzurinpg-"th..e:'releyantl The respondent alleges letter dated seen that a lawyer the...complainant dated Rao, advocate to the asking for apology and _a replyV_Vther*eto»_vlva's given by the ls' accused on A that the respondent is in the false and frivolous complaints against the managers of local banks at Gangavathi _ stating" as follows:
"Your client is in the habit of giving false and frivolous complaints against the Bank Managers of the local banks at Gangavathi. He has approached out Gangavathi branch on various occasions, recommending the sanctioning of loans to various persons known % to him. When informed that the Branch sanctioning the loans only on the meritsiiof' case and as per its procedural norrns',~..Vhe::fhays 0' threatened our Bank Mianagerli' vx/ith'i_ due consequences. He has also«yatt_'ernpt1ed "t5).0l'3VLé"i~1j1.VV:7."
loan documents executed cer.'tai'rl,4_v_thii?dif parties in favour of the_ll'Banl<f'a.nduuplogn the same being refused, abused our 'Branch Manager in filthy threatened him.
As a consequence',:fou'r_&'Braiic&h.[Ix/lanager has also pcqmfe on 9.9.2003 against-"yolur7.c1iei51j't.Al"'» if 0 has adopted such Zfltacticsv onfoitizelr-blanks-0 also. Weherebyl you to restrain your client
-- .. front' such nefarious activities. If ghe ..persists----------i--n' this fashion, the Bank shall be
--,_forCeVd=t__o take stern action against your client." complainant has thereafter sent another noti'C,e'i-dated 31.05.2004 through another advocate if r blyirname Sri. V. S. Hiremath and in reply to the said notice, a notice dated 10.06.2004 has been issued by the petitioner No.2 through his counsel Sri. K. R. -10- Deshpande. The said communications are ' as Exs. P3, P4, P5 and P6 before the
8. The learned Magis_trate'----ha.s however'; froth referred to the documents impugniedi.i.orider,iiibut has in one sentence has made out a prima that the complainant' to proceed against referring to any licornplainant to proceed againistuthei The sworn statement of _.the il'Cornlp1Va;--inant"'i recorded by the learned l\/iagis.trate. reiterates the contents of the above 0 "'do"CL1rnen.ts...g_i However, the learned Magistrate has not iatfall his mind as to how the offence under Section; 420 [PC is made out against the accused. So how the letter dated 20.10.2003, which is the ifbasis for the private complaint contains defamatory materials and that it has resulted in lowering the prestige of the complainant in the public eye. The % -11- order of the learned Magistrate further indicate.si'-that no statements of other witnesses have beer£_:ireCorded'..__ii' _ and therefore, the learned Magistrate .lia's---ln_otl"'at'*all,4 applied hismind to come to the c.;onelu'si_o'n:i'that:"tet.h'Ej_' averrnents made in the Cornplaint, sworn Ast.a«terrv--ent and other documents attracpt =.__the iprovisjabns of Section 500 {PC or se<§ttion_ 420 IlPiQ~} p
9. The :=A.of§peth;e hurling false allegations power has been instance where just becaulsepi the refused to sanction the loan to the complainant and also the persons whom Atheicoiriipvlainant recommended, the complainant complaint before the court. It is re'leva___nt to observe that the complainant is a retired .A person 'and has no work to do except whiling away iK_lh'is7time as per his own averments before the Court.
-"The petitioners are none other than the senior officials of the bank and their post is transferable _12- from place to place. The trend of hurling all4e»g_a-tui_o~ns against such officials without any nipped in the bud.
10. Having regard to the__ n':.a.terials on 'reVc=or*d,ll'« I have no hesitation to the has been filed with maiafides"an.d'jthga.t& thellcornjolainant has not at all madealoutg the offence against the petitioneérlslllg"-7lfiliel:V'--wletteif.-::d'a~te:d '72¥o;V'1'o.2oo3 is aimed at curbing public and there is nothing' defamavt:_orj}'inlii't»he said letter. ' " 11. V In of what has been discussed above, is allowed. The proceedings in ._ pending before the Principal JMFC, Gihangaiviathi is hereby quashed insofar as the * petitioners are concerned.
gal ' 3099?' gab