Bangalore District Court
Kumaraswamy M.C vs Mrs. Spurthi Sunil Surpur on 15 May, 2020
1
Crl. R.P. No.983/2019
IN THE COURT OF LV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU(CCH-56)
:Present:
Sri K.Narayana Prasad, B.Sc., LL.M.,
LV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
DATED : This the 15th day of May, 2020.
CRIMINAL RIVISION PETITION. No.983/2019
PETITIONER :: Kumaraswamy M.C., Aged 64
years, A-022, Beary's Lakeside
Habitat, No.18, Shanthivana,
Bengaluru-560 092
(Rep. by Party in person)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS :: 1. Mrs. Spurthi Sunil Surpur,
Aged 29 years.
D/o. Mr. Sunil Kumar Surpur,
R/at No.191/1, Shubhaprada,
1st Cross, Kurubarahalli Road,
Bengaluru-560 086
Also at: C/o. Dr. James B.
Reilly, M.D., Program Director,
Internal Medicine Residency,
Allegheny General Hospital,
No.320, East North Avenue,
Pitsburg, P.A. 15212, United
States of America.
2. Sunil Kumar Shanthappa
Surpur, Major, Residing at
No.191/1, Shubhaprada, 1st
2
Crl. R.P. No.983/2019
Cross, Kurubarahalli Road,
Mahalakshmipuram,Bengaluru
-560 086
3. Mrs. Swathi Sunil Surpur,
Major,R/at No.191/1, Shubha
prada, 1st Cross, Kurubarahalli
Road, Mahalakshmipuram,
Bengaluru-560 086
(notice not issued)
ORDER
This is a Revision Petition filed U/s. 397 and 399 of Cr.P.C., directed against the order passed by the learned VII A.C.M.M., dated 13.12.2019 in PCR No.3498/2019.
2. The facts in brief of the case of the petitioner is that, he has filed a private complaint in PCR No.3498/2019 against the respondents No.1 to 3 for the offence punishable U/s 499 and 500 of IPC. It is stated by the complainant that the first accused is his daughter-in-law and second and third accused are parents of respondent No.1. It is the case of the complainant that, his son married respondent No.1 on 3 Crl. R.P. No.983/2019 16.6.2014 and complainant and his family members have provided all financial assistance to accused No.1 to go abroad for prosecuting her further studies. After going to USA, she started distancing herself from her husband and she was avoiding to contact her husband. A legal notice was issued by the son of the complainant calling upon her to continue matrimonial relationship, for which, she has issued untenable reply with defamatory remarks stating that son of complainant is suffering from Schizophrenia and mental illness. She has made reckless allegations about the health condition of son of complainant, which not only caused mental torture to the complainant and his family members, but amounts to defamation. Accordingly, elaborately explaining the facts and circumstances, the complainant has filed a complaint for moving against the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC.
4
Crl. R.P. No.983/2019
3. The learned Magistrate has recorded Sworn Statement of the complainant and documents Exs.C1 to C12 are marked. After hearing the arguments of the complainant, the learned Magistrate has held that complaint lacks merits and no case is made out against the accused. Hence, complaint was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Magistrate, the present Revision Petition is filed on various grounds. Some of the main grounds are that, The impugned order is not in accordance with law, erroneous and liable to be set aside. The complainant has stated that the defamatory allegations made by the accused are with an intention to destroy the reputation, dignity and to humiliate petitioner and his family members. The learned Magistrate has failed to consider the fact of derogatory, defamatory averments, even after producing number of documents before the court. The 5 Crl. R.P. No.983/2019 learned Magistrate has not taken into consideration that the complainant has provided all financial assistance to the accused No.1 to prosecute her studies abroad. The facts and circumstances mentioned in the notice and police complaint are not properly analyzed by the learned Magistrate and it is the clear case of defamation and ingredients of Section 499 and 500 of IPC are made out by the complainant against the accused and accordingly prays for allowing the Revision Petition.
3. Since the case was dismissed by the Trial Court, even prior to the appearance of accused, the notice against the respondents is dispensed with. Perused the Written Arguments submitted by the party in person and documents submitted before the Court, perused the trial court records. Heard the arguments of party in person.
4. The points that arise for consideration is; 6
Crl. R.P. No.983/2019
1. Whether the petitioner has made out grounds for registering a case against the accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC?
2. Whether the order passed by the Trial Court suffers from any illegality and required to be set aside ?
3. What order?
8. My answer to the above points is as under:
POINT No.1 : In the Negative
POINT No.2 : in the Negative
POINT No.3 : As per final order for the
following. ....
REASONS
9. POINTS No-1 to 3 :: I am considering these
two points together as they are interlinked each other and this is also done with a view to avoid repetition of facts.
10. The accused No.1 has married the son of the 7 Crl. R.P. No.983/2019 complainant by name Mr. Mohit Kumarswamy, other accused are the parents of accused No.1. It is the case of the complainant that accused No.1 after marrying son of the complainant started avoiding the son of the complainant and she has made some defamatory remarks against the son of the complainant in the reply notice issued by her. According to the complainant, accused No.1 is a medical graduate and the complainant has explained the circumstances that at the time of engagement, there are some unpleasant situations arising out of the conduct of accused and further he makes allegation that accused No.1 took the help of complainant and his son and studying in USA and she has also carried the valuables of complainant and his son. It is further alleged that after going to USA, she started avoiding to contact the son of the complainant and the complainant has also made some serious allegation against the accused that they are acting against the 8 Crl. R.P. No.983/2019 interest of complainant and his family members and they have tried to malign the image of complainant and his family members.
11. It is further the case of the complainant that, the son of the complainant got issued a legal notice to accused No.1 calling upon her to come and join the company of Mr. Mohit Kumarswamy, for which, a reply notice was issued by the accused No.1. Wherein, the accused No.1 has allegedly made some defamatory remarks against the son of the complainant that, he is suffering from Schizophrenia and mental illness and she has also made allegation against the son of the complainant. It is also the case of the complainant that, he has filed a police complaint against the accused, for which, accused No.1 has issued a reply to the police making allegation that son of the complainant is suffering from mental illness and Schizophrenia. The complainant states that the statement made by accused No.1 has maligned the 9 Crl. R.P. No.983/2019 image of the complainant in the society and in the relationship circle and it has also caused grate loss to his reputation and image and accordingly, he filed the complaint. The complainant has given Sworn Statement before the Trial Court, reiterating the complaint averments. He has produced 12 documents before the Trial Court as Ex.C1 to C12, which includes the notice, police complaint and other documents. The learned Magistrate has dismissed the complaint stating that the statement of accused Nos.1 to 3, do not constitute any defamatory statement. The contents of reply notice are narrated for not living with the company of the son of the complainant.
12. The complainant in his Written Arguments has elaborately stated as to in what way he and his family members have assisted accused No.1 to prosecute her studies in USA and he has further stated that accused Nos.1 to 3 have caused great loss of reputation to the complainant and his family members. 10
Crl. R.P. No.983/2019 It is further argued that the allegation made against the son of the complainant is reckless allegation and it is far from truth, which attracts penal provision of Sections 499 and 500 of IPC.
13. There is no doubt that at the time of issuance of process, the Magistrate need not conduct a mini trial and go deep in the subject matter. A prima- facie case is required to be seen at the time of registration of a criminal case against the accused Nos. 1 to 3. At the same time nothing prevents the Magistrate from forming his opinion against the complainant, if there is no prima-facie case is made out for issuance of process.
14. In the case on hand, the main allegation is against the accused Nos.1 to 3. The allegation against the accused No.1 is that, she has made derogatory and defamatory remarks against the son of the complainant in her reply notice issued in response to 11 Crl. R.P. No.983/2019 the notice issued by the son of complainant.
15. On going through the said legal notice, it is a very lengthy legal notice running more than 10 pages. In the said legal notice, some remarks are made against the accused No.1, that she is not discharging her duties as dutiful wife and there are some allegations against her for causing loss to the complainant and his family members. To the said legal notice, accused No.1 has issued reply, wherein the accused No.1 has made allegation that her husband is not working in ITC project as falsely projected to her before her marriage. It is further stated by her that, her husband is under treatment and medication with Psychiatrists at Mallya Hospital and Spandana Nursing Home and she has narrated some incidents about behavior of the son of the complainant. She has also made allegation in para-11 of reply statement that her husband is suffering from Schizophrenia. The complainant is aggrieved by the said statement made 12 Crl. R.P. No.983/2019 in the reply notice, dated 18.11.2018 at Annexure-B. The complainant has also made allegation against accused Nos.2 and 3 stating that they have made defamatory remarks against the son of the complainant.
16. Now, the question before the Court is, whether the facts and circumstances of this case warrants registration of a criminal case against the accused Nos. 1 to 3 or not to be seen. On going through Annexure-A, which is a reply notice, the complainant states that some serious allegation against mental condition of son of the complainant is made. The learned Magistrate has observed in his order that Annexure-A is issued in response to legal notice issued by Mr. Mohit Kumarswamy. The notice issued by Mohit Kumarswamy is not marked before the Trial Court, but it is made available. It appears that on going through the reply notice Annexure-A, which is marked as Ex.C1 that a lengthy reply has been 13 Crl. R.P. No.983/2019 issued to the legal notice issued by the son of the complainant by denying the notice averments. It is also seen that accused No.1 has made allegation that Mohit Kumarswamy is suffering from Schizophrenia and other mental illness and he was taking treatment etc. It appears that, the said reply has been issued in response to the legal notice issued by the son of the complainant. It is not that the accused No.1 who has issued such notice at first instance. Or the accused No.1 never made any public statement about the health condition of son of the complainant. It appears to the court that the allegation made against the accused No.1 has been refused under Annexure-A and she has assigned reasons for not living with the son of the complainant. Whether the son of the complainant is suffering from Schizophrenia or not cannot be decided at this stage. At the same time, it is relevant to mention that the complainant never examined his son before the Court for the reasons best known to 14 Crl. R.P. No.983/2019 him. It is further relevant to mention here that, the son of the complainant has not filed any complaint against the accused Nos.1 to 3 in any manner. The complainant states that his reputation has been lowered and affected by the statement made by accused No.1 in her legal notice and other accused in other forms. It appears to the court that it is the reply given by the wife to the husband assigning reason for not living with him and leading matrimonial life. The Magistrate has correctly came to the conclusion that, it is not made with an intention to defame the complainant in any manner. The complainant has vehemently submitted that his son is not suffering from any such problem, etc. A medical certificate is also produced before the Court, which is part of the record, which is issued by the Doctor, certifying the illness of son of the complainant. However, it is clarified by the complainant that the said certificate has been challenged by him before disciplinary 15 Crl. R.P. No.983/2019 authority and some action has been initiated etc. That making such allegation against the husband, that too, in a reply notice may not constitute a defamatory remarks. The wife is under the obligation of issuing a reply to the legal notice explaining her part of case. It is further relevant to mention here that, the son of the complainant has issued a legal notice calling upon her to come and join matrimonial life. Under such circumstances, Annexure -A has been issued with her reasons. Whether the reasons assigned by her are true or not cannot be decided in cases like this. If the son of the complainant is really aggrieved by such remarks, he should move against her in accordance with law and procedure. The complainant states that, remarks made by accused No.1 has spread in the relative and their circle and his reputation is affected etc. Assuming for a moment that, if the son of the complainant is really suffering from such problem, then one can not find fault over the reply issued by accused 16 Crl. R.P. No.983/2019 No.1. If her reply is bad in law and far from truth, law will take its own course and aggrieved party can definitely move against them in accordance with law. The stage is too premature to issue process against the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence punishable u/S 499 and 500 of IPC. It is not the case of the complainant that accused Nos.1 to 3 have publicly commented about the health problem of son of complainant and given wide publicity, etc. It is relevant to mention here that the son of the complainant has issued notice, for which reply has been issued by the wife of Mr. Mohit Kumarswamy. It appears to the trial court that it is a reply by a wife explaining the circumstances of her to stay away from the matrimonial life etc. It is further, relevant that, she has mentioned that she wants divorce against the son of the complainant. Having regard to these facts, the Magistrate has felt that the complainant has not made out any prima-facie case. It is further pertinent 17 Crl. R.P. No.983/2019 to observe here that, the accused Nos. 1 to 3 never issued any legal notice prior to the legal notice issued by the son of the complainant. His other allegations such as theft of valuables and about extending financial support against the accused are extraneous to the cases like this and they are not grounds to move against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 499 and 500 of IPC. The complainant has relied on decision decided by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Ramachandra Venkataramanan Vs. M/s Shapoorji Pallonji & Company Ltd., and another, wherein, at para 40 the Hon'ble High Court has observed that defamation is broadly defined as false statement, damaging one's goodwill or reputation or image and it is against the Article 19 of the Constitution of India. He has also relies on another decision decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Google India Private Ltd Vs. M/s Visakha Industries. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has made observation in Para 103 that in order to 18 Crl. R.P. No.983/2019 constitute a defamation, what are all the parameters. The above referred principles are well settled. Here is a case, wherein the daughter-in-law of complainant has made certain allegations against the son of the complainant that the son of the complainant is suffering from Schizophrenia and other mental illness etc. Whether such allegation is false or it is a false statement can be decided only after examination of a competent professional doctors. Here in the case the son of the complainant is not examined by denying the allegations made against him by his wife. Secondly, the daughter-in-law has issued reply pursuant to the legal notice issued by the son of the complainant. The complainant has not produced any medical evidence in order to know the condition of his son. Hence, this court is of the view that the observation of the Magistrate that case has not been made out against accused Nos.1 to 3 has merit in it. Hence, citations relied on by the complainant is not applicable to the 19 Crl. R.P. No.983/2019 present set of facts. In order to register a case for defamation and for issuance of process in cases like this convincing material should be placed in order to move against the accused Nos. 1 to 3. The complainant himself produced the xerox copy of the medical certificate dated 11.6.2019 issued by the Doctor, wherein it has been stated that the son of the complainant is suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, however, the complainant has specifically denied such medical certificate and states that he has challenged the same before the Disciplinary Authority and it is under progress. At this stage, the complainant has not made out any valid grounds to move against accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Section 499 and 500 of IPC. It appears that, there is some matrimonial dispute between son of the complainant and accused No.1. Hence, under such circumstances, the allegation made by and against the wife and husband cannot be construed as defamatory remarks. 20
Crl. R.P. No.983/2019 Except self serving statement of complainant, he has not tried to place the version of his son or sworn statement of any other person including medical evidence. There is no acceptable materials to hold that wide publicity is given in the matter of reply notice and about defamation etc. The sworn statement and document produced by the complainant are insufficient to move against the accused Nos. 1 to 3 at this stage. Hence, the Magistrate is right in dismissing the complaint at the threshold itself. This Court also see that, there is no irregularity committed by the Trial Court in any manner. Having regard to these facts, this Court is of the view that sufficient grounds are not made out by the complainant to move against the accused Nos. 1 to 3. Considering all these facts in proper perspective, this court has come to the conclusion that there is no scope for interfering with the order passed by the Trial Court in any manner. Hence, the points 1 and 2 are answered in Negative 21 Crl. R.P. No.983/2019 and proceed to pass the following ....
ORDER The Criminal Revision Petition filed U/s.397 & 399 of Cr.P.C., is dismissed.
The order passed by 7th ACMM, Bengaluru in PCR No.3498/2019 dt. 13-12-2019 is confirmed.
There is no order towards cost.
Office to send back the TCR with copy of the order for reference to the trial court.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him and the transcription corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this the 15th day of May, 2020.) (K.NARAYANA PRASAD), LV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. (CCH-56)