Madras High Court
Appavoo vs B.Lenin Balu on 31 January, 2022
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
Crl.O.P.No.10698 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATE: 31.01.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
Crl.O.P.No.10698 of 2017
&
Crl.M.P.Nos.7050 and 7051 of 2017
Appavoo
S/o.Subburaya Gounder ... Petitioner/Accused
Vs.
B.Lenin Balu ... Respondent / Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to call
for the records in the private complaint in C.C.No.100 of 2017 on the file
of Judicial Magistrate Court, Gudiyattam, Vellore District and quash the
same.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Gunaseelan
For Respondent : No Appearance
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the private complaint filed against the petitioner in C.C.No.100 of 2017 for the offence under Section 500 IPC.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/6 Crl.O.P.No.10698 of 2017
2. The complainant is a practising Advocate and he has sold the property to the de facto complainant for a total consideration of Rs.17,49,150/-. However, at the time of registration, only a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- has been paid and Rs.2,00,000/- was retained by the petitioner and hence a public notice was issued by the respondent/complainant for payment of Rs.2,00,000/- held by the petitioner for which the petitioner has given a reply in a publication to the effect that the property was sold only to meet out the pressing necessities including the debts of the complainant and the petitioner has withheld the two lakhs only due to the shortage of 10 cents of land. The above reply in the publication indicates that the property was sold due to the certain debt of the complainant, which triggered the filing of the private complaint for the offence under Section 500 of IPC.
3. Heard Mr.S.Gunaseelan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no offence of defamation has been made by the petitioner. The petitioner has issued publication only by way of reply and giving reasons https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/6 Crl.O.P.No.10698 of 2017 for withholding the balance amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. Such statement would not constitute an offence of defamation and the present complaint has been filed only to harass the petitioner. It is submitted by learned counsel that no such statement whatsoever has been made with an intention to cause harm to the respondent. Hence, learned counsel submitted that the entire private complaint is nothing but an abuse of process of law.
5. There is no representation for the respondent today, but the learned counsel made submissions in the last hearing. This Court has posed several questions in the last hearing itself, but learned counsel is absent today for the reasons best known to him. His absence is apparent.
6. In any event, on a perusal of the entire complaint, the main allegation, which triggered filing of the private complaint for defamation is the reply notice sent by way of publication. The respondent herein has given a public notice contending that the petitioner has not paid the balance sale consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- retained by him despite the land having been measured by a qualified surveyor. The petitioner has given a reply notice to the public notice given by the respondent in the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/6 Crl.O.P.No.10698 of 2017 newspaper indicating that the sale has been made voluntarily only in order to meet out certain pressing necessities in the respondent's family including the debts of the respondent and as the extent of the land has not tallied with the measurement mentioned in the sale deed, Rs.2,00,000/- was retained by him. The complaint came to be filed taking exception to the above reply notice. Now on a perusal of the reply notice given by way of paper publication, it is clear that what was stated is only that the property was voluntarily sold to meet out the family necessities and to clear the debt of the respondent herein. The sale deed, which is the subject matter of issue, was also placed on record before this Court. The recitals in the sale deed itself indicate that the sale has been made to meet out the family necessities and also to clear the debt due to the principal, who has given a General Power of Attorney. This Court is of the view that mere reply stating the correct facts under what circumstances the property was sought to be sold would not constitute an offence of defamation. What is reflected in the reply notice is the facts stated in the sale deed. Therefore, merely because the word 'loan' has been included in the reply notice, it cannot be said that the same has been made with the intention to harm the reputation of the respondent and such intention has in fact lowered the reputation. In the absence of any intention, mere reply https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/6 Crl.O.P.No.10698 of 2017 notice issued by the respondent setting out the circumstances under which the property has been sold will not fall within the ambit of causing defamation.
7. In such view of the matter, this Court of the view of that continuation of prosecution is mere abuse of process of law and the same is liable to be quashed.
8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.100 of 2017 on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court, Gudiyattam, Vellore District is quashed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
31.01.2022 Index: Yes/no Internet: Yes/No gpa/gba To
1. The Judicial Magistrate Court, Gudiyattam, Vellore District.
2.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai - 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/6 Crl.O.P.No.10698 of 2017 N.SATHISH KUMAR.J., gpa/gba Crl.O.P.No.10698 of 2017 & Crl.M.P.Nos.7050 and 7051 of 2017 31.01.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/6