Delhi District Court
Anjali College Of Pharmacy & Science vs ..........Revisionist on 18 May, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ARUL VARMA
ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE04 & SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS) ACT
SOUTH EAST DISTRICT: SAKET COURT: NEW DELHI
CR No. 840/2019
1 Anjali College of Pharmacy & Science,
Through its Foundercumchairman,
Shri Devendra Gupta,
Having Office at Agra Firozabad Road,
NH2, Etmadpur, Agra (UP) and having
Corporate Office at 107/9, Kishangarh,
Vasantkunj, New Delhi110070
Vs ..........Revisionist
1 Dr. Neeraj Kant Sharma
5/508, Anjara GenX, Crossing
Republic NH24, Ghaziabad (UP)
Also at Meerut Institute of Technology
Meerut (UP)
2 Dr. Priyanak,
5/508, Anjara GenX, Crossing
Republic NH24, Ghaziabad (UP)
Also at Meerut Institute of Technology
Meerut (UP)
..........Respondents
Instituted on : 03.12.2019
Argued on : 18.05.2022
Decided on : 18.05.2022.
ORDER
1. Vide this order, this Court shall adjudicate the Criminal Revision petition, whereby the Revisionist has assailed the impugned order dated 14.10.2019 whereby the Ld. Trial Court dismissed the Anjali College of Pharmacy and Science Vs. Dr Neeraj Kant Sharma CR No.840 of 2019 Page No. 1/11 complaint filed by the revisionist with cost of Rs. 25,000/. FACTS
2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant is running a pharmacy college with the approval of Pharmacy of India, AICTE and affiliation from Dr. Abdul Kalam Technical University. It is further stated that vide several letters AICTE and U.P Technical University granted approval, extension and affiliation of B.Pharma Course of 60 Seats to the complainant from time to time for academic year from 2014 till year 2019. It is further stated that said permission is granted after inspection by the appropriate authority.
3. It is further stated that accused no.1 was appointed as principal in the complainant college while accused no.2 work as Associate Professor with the complainant college. It is further stated that while accused no.1 was employed with the college of the complainant he collected the fees from the students of the college however did not deposit the same with the complainant college or accounted for the same. It is further stated that accused no.2 while being employed with the complainant college started pursuing her Phd with taking the permission of the complainant college or disclosing the same to the complainant. It is further Anjali College of Pharmacy and Science Vs. Dr Neeraj Kant Sharma CR No.840 of 2019 Page No. 2/11 stated that the accused no.1 was aware of the said fact however he also concealed the same from the complainant college. It is further stated that both accused 1 and 2 left the services of the complainant college and tendered their resignation abruptly causing great difficulty for the complainant and complainant further lodged complaint with pharmacy Counsel of India against accused no.1 and 2 and further issued a legal notice upon them. It is further stated that on 6th December 2018 accused persons issued a letter with Pharmacy Council of India thereby levelling false allegations upon the complainant. By way of the present complaint, complainant has sought summoning of accused persons for the offence punishable u/s 406/420/500/34 IPC. FINDINGS
4. In this regard, it is pertinent to state in here that complainant herein has made completely vague allegations against the proposed accused persons. It has not been mentioned by the complainant in the entire complaint filed before the court or before the Police or PCI as to the amount of fees, or students whose fees has been misappropriated or the period for which said fees was misappropriated or the period for which said fees was misappropriated by the accused no.1. Furthermore again Anjali College of Pharmacy and Science Vs. Dr Neeraj Kant Sharma CR No.840 of 2019 Page No. 3/11 complainant in his complainant has stated that accused no.1 has taken certain documents alongwith with him. However again there is mention as to what all documents alongwith him, however again there is mention as to what all documents were alleged to be taken by the accused no.1 alongwith him. It is pertinent to state in here that in the complaint before the Court it is stated by the complainant that accused went along with books of account, however in the very first complaint dated 14.03.2018 so filed by the complainant against the accused before PCI there is no mention that accused persons have taken books of accounts of complainant bank with them. As such there is nothing place on record by the complainant to show that there was any entrustment done by the complainant upon the accused no.1 and there was misappropriation by the accused persons. As such, complainant herein has failed to prove the allegations u/s 406 IPC. Furthermore, there is no allegations of inducement by the accused persons upon the complainant so as to attract provision of offence of cheating.
5. In this regard it is pertinent to state in here that after perusal of said letter dated 06.12.2018 by no stretch of imagination it can be said that contents of said letter are defamatory in nature. Said Anjali College of Pharmacy and Science Vs. Dr Neeraj Kant Sharma CR No.840 of 2019 Page No. 4/11 letter merely shows that intimation has been given by the accused persons with PCI that they have left the job with the complainant college in January 2018 and they did not participate in the inspection committed by PCI. Furthermore, PCI is regulatory body of the complainant college. Any person having grievances with the complainant college has a right to move complaint against the complainant before the said regulatory authority. Further, PCI being regulatory authority has right to seek comment from complainant. Complainant cannot be allowed to say that any complaint or letter move against or qua it before competent authority amount to defamation.
6. It is pertinent to state in here that merely complaint/letter so moved by proposed accused before PCI does not amount to publication as per section 499 IPC. It is further pertinent to state in here that no independent witness has been examined by the complainant before the court to show or prove that due to said letter 06.12.2018 Image, repute or dignity of complainant college is lowered in society.
CONTENTIONS
7. Arguments were heard in extenso, the gist whereof is as hereunder:
Anjali College of Pharmacy and Science Vs. Dr Neeraj Kant Sharma CR No.840 of 2019 Page No. 5/11
8. Ld. counsel for the revisionist, at the very threshold, submitted that he would be confining his arguments only on the aspect of jurisdiction and defamation. Qua jurisdiction it was submitted that the Ld. Trial Court had erred in deciding the complaint both on merits as well as on jurisdiction. It was contended by Ld. Counsel for revisionist that this is not permissible, and the Ld. Trial Court ought to have decided on the aspect of jurisdiction, and ought to have returned the complaint, in case there was lack of jurisdiction. It was contended by Ld. Counsel that as per para 17 of the impugned order dated 14.10.2019 the Ld. Trial Court opined that Delhi Courts do not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
9. Further, Ld. Counsel for revisionist contended that there was no occasion for the respondents to shoot off letter dated 06.12.2018 to the Chairman, Pharmacy Council of India. It was contended that this letter is defamatory in as much as allegations have been levelled that the management did not take ethical decisions, and that all the faculty members were first to take leave for 15 days without payment of salary. Thus, Ld. Counsel for the revisionist submitted that the order dated 14.10.2019 passed by Ld. Trial Court be set aside.
Anjali College of Pharmacy and Science Vs. Dr Neeraj Kant Sharma CR No.840 of 2019 Page No. 6/11
10. Per Contra Ld. Counsel for the respondent submitted that the Ld. Trial Court has only observed that the jurisdiction of Delhi Courts is ousted only qua the offences of misappropriation or cheating, and not qua the alleged offence of defamation. Qua the factum of defamation, it was argued that the use of the word ethical, and by no stretch of imagination be termed as defamatory. It was further submitted that the contents of letter dated 06.12.2018 have not been denied by the complainant either in the complaint before the Ld. Trial Court or in the revision petition filed before this Court. It was lastly contended that the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) is a regulatory body of the complainant college, and thus the respondents were well within their rights to make complaints thereto. Ld. Counsel for the respondents placed reliance on Dr. Mohd. Akbar Bhat Vs. Abdul Ahad, 1999 SCC Online J&K 42.
DECISION
11. As regards the first contention of the revisionist, it would be apposite to reproduce para17 of the impugned order dated 14.10.2019: "17. Although complainant herein has miserably failed to show prima facie case or prove any of the allegations so levelled against the accused persons, it is pertinent to state in here that all the alleged acts of misappropriation or theft or cheating are alleged to Anjali College of Pharmacy and Science Vs. Dr Neeraj Kant Sharma CR No.840 of 2019 Page No. 7/11 have taken place in District Agra, UP. None of the alleged cause of action is stated to have taken place within the jurisdiction of Delhi. Complainant herein has appears to have levelled the allegations of Defamation merely to make the jurisdiction of Courts in Delhi."
12. A careful perusal of the abovesaid paragraph lends credence to the assertions of the respondents that the jurisdiction of Delhi Courts was not ousted, qua defamation, by the said order. The Ld. Trial Court has categorically held that the alleged acts of misappropriation or theft or cheating have alleged to have taken place in Agra, Uttar Pradesh. In the same breath the Ld. Trial Court has observed that the complainant herein has levelled allegations of defamation merely to invoke the jurisdiction of Courts in Delhi. In this context it would be apt to peruse P.S. Meher Homji Vs. K.T. Vijay Kumar & Ors., C.R. No. 1780/2013 wherein it was held that the place which the act of indictment is made or the place where the publication was done will get jurisdiction. Reliance was also placed on Narayan Singh Vs. State of Delhi to contend that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed that offence could be trite either at the place where the posting took place or at the place where the actual publication took place. Thus, qua the offence of defamation by means of defamatory letter, the matter can be tried both at the place of posting as well as where the publication took place. In the instant Anjali College of Pharmacy and Science Vs. Dr Neeraj Kant Sharma CR No.840 of 2019 Page No. 8/11 case the letter was posted to Pharmacy Council of India, which is in New Delhi. Thus, Delhi Courts have the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint or revision.
13. As far as the offence of defamation is concerned, it would be apt to peruse para9 of Dr. Mohammad Akbar Bhat's case (Supra): "9. In (1992) 3 SCC 317 : AIR 1992 SC 1379: (1992 Cri LJ 1956) (supra), it has been held that where the allegations in complaint prima facie constitute an offence, the quashing of complaint on additional materials filed by the accused was not justified. After considering the respective contentions of the counsel for the parties it has to be seen in the instant case whether the allegations made in the complaint even if are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do or do not constitute the offence alleged. The answer to this query is that the allegations on their face value do not constitute an offence falling under S. 500, RPC because it is not established on these allegations that respondent petitioner herein either by words spoken or intended to be read or by signs or by visible representations had made or published any imputation concerning the respondent and intending to harm him or knowing that it will harm his reputation. Rather, it is the admitted case of the respondent that he himself had read out the contents of the complaint in the bar room and in this manner the contents of the complaint were made public. This was the own act of the respondent for which the petitioner cannot be held guilty. It cannot be said that the allegations made in the complaint are defamatory because they relate to professional misconduct and addressed to an authority who under law is competent to take the suitable action. The trial Court was required to address itself on these significant aspects of the case which has not been done. Taking the cognizance of the complaint and issuance of the process against the petitioner is an abuse of the process of the Court. In this view of the matter, the proceedings initiated in the said complaint are quashed and the complaint stands dismissed with a direction to the concerned authority of the P.S. Indira Gandhi Airport, New Delhi for releasing passport No. 232157 dated 2431993 in favour of the petitioner. CMP No. 37/99 also stands disposed of. Anjali College of Pharmacy and Science Vs. Dr Neeraj Kant Sharma CR No.840 of 2019 Page No. 9/11
14. During the course of arguments both parties affirmed, and agreed that PCI is a regulatory authority of the complainant college. This fact remains undisputed. At this juncture it would be apt to peruse Exception Eight to Section 499 IPC: "Eight Exception.- Accusation preferred in good faith to authorised persons.- It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subjectmatter of accusation."
15. Thus, it is explicit that an accusation has been made by the respondents to the regulatory authority and thus same would fall under Exception Eight to Section 499 IPC.
16. Moreover, this Court concurs with the observations of Ld. Trial Court that the contents of letter dated 06.12.2018 are not defamatory in nature. Since, PCI is a regulatory body of the complainant college, the respondents were well within their rights to seek redressal of their grievances before the said regulatory authority. Such airing of grievances before the competent body would not come within the ambit of defamation and there has been no harm as such to the reputation of the college.
17. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no infirmity in the order dated 14.10.2019 passed by Ld. MM02, SouthEast, Saket Courts, New Delhi. Accordingly, the present Anjali College of Pharmacy and Science Vs. Dr Neeraj Kant Sharma CR No.840 of 2019 Page No. 10/11 criminal revision stands dismissed.
18. TCR, if any, alongwith copy of this order be sent to Ld. Trial Court for necessary information.
19. File of the revision petition be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court on 18th May, 2022.
(ARUL VARMA ) ASJ04 + Spl. Judge (NDPS), South East District, Saket Court, New Delhi Anjali College of Pharmacy and Science Vs. Dr Neeraj Kant Sharma CR No.840 of 2019 Page No. 11/11