Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Unknown vs M/S Vintron Communication Pvt. Ltd on 25 January, 2020

                IN THE COURT OF SH. GULSHAN KUMAR,
                    ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE ­03
                 SOUTH EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS
                            NEW DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF                                                    Digitally
                                                                    signed by
CNR NO. DLSE01­006316­2018                                          GULSHAN
                                                            GULSHAN KUMAR
CR NO. 559 OF 2018                                          KUMAR   Date:
                                                                    2020.02.10
M. K. Gupta,                                                        15:40:02
                                                                    +0530
S/o Sh. Ram Kumar Gupta,
At Present Resident of-
C-9/224, Ground Floor, Sector-7,
Rohini, Delhi-110085.                                      .......... Revisionist

                                   Versus

1. M/s Vintron Communication Pvt. Ltd.,
   Through its Director Sh. Pankaj Tayal,
   Registered Office at -
   37, Rampuri, Kalkaji,
   New Delhi-110019.

   Also at-
   M/s Vintron Communication Pvt. Ltd.,
   Through its Director Sh. Pankaj Tayal,
   Corporate Office at-
   TA-21 & 22, Panash House, Street No. 2,
   Tuglakabad Extension, Main Okhla Road,
   New Delhi-110019.

2. Sh. Pankaj Tayal, Director,
   M/s Vintron Communication Pvt. Ltd.,
   37, Rampuri, Kalkaji,

CR No. 559/18                     M. K. Gupta                          Page 1 of 7
                                     Vs.
                  M/s Vintron Communication Pvt. Ltd. & Others
    New Delhi-110019.

Also at-
  M/s Vintron Communication Pvt. Ltd.,
  TA-21 & 22, Panash House, Street No. 2,
  Tuglakabad Extension, Main Okhla Road,
  New Delhi-110019.

3. Smt. Vidushi Tayal, Director,
   M/s Vintron Communication Pvt. Ltd.,
   37, Rampuri, Kalkaji,
   New Delhi-110019.

Also at-
  M/s Vintron Communication Pvt. Ltd.,
  TA-21 & 22, Panash House, Street No. 2,
  Tuglakabad Extension, Main Okhla Road,
  New Delhi-110019.

4. Smt. Asha Gupta, Director,
   M/s Vintron Communication Pvt. Ltd.,
   Flat No. 72-A, Ground Floor,
   Pocket A-14, Himigiri Apartments,
   Kalkaji Extension, New Delhi-110019.

Also at-
  M/s Vintron Communication Pvt. Ltd.,
  TA-21 & 22, Panash House, Street No. 2,
  Tuglakabad Extension, Main Okhla Road,
  New Delhi-110019.                 .......... Respondents

DATE OF INSTITUTION                    : 03.08.2018
DATE OF RESERVING ORDER                : 07.12.2019
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT                  : 25.01.2020



CR No. 559/18                   M. K. Gupta                    Page 2 of 7
                                   Vs.

M/s Vintron Communication Pvt. Ltd. & Others

1. Vide this Order I shall dispose of criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 399 of the Cr.P.C. against order dated 03.04.2018 passed by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate wherein the criminal complaint under Section 499 & 500 read with Section 120B IPC filed by the revisionist against the respondents was dismissed (hereinafter referred to as impugned order).

2. The brief facts as per the case of revisionist are that the revisionist had filed a civil suit no. 442/2008 against the respondents no. 2 to 4 for recovery of possession and mandatory permanent injunction. Respondent no. 2 filed the written statement dated 03.08.2012 mentioning false and frivolous allegations against the revisionist. The revisionist had also filed a civil suit no. 544/2011 against respondent no. 2 and respondent no. 2 filed written statement dated 13.01.2012 again mentioning false and frivolous allegations against the revisionist. The revisionist had also filed a criminal complaint against respondent no. 2 under Section 498/497/452/506 IPC dated 23.06.2012. The revisionist joined respondent no. 1 company on 01.01.2006 as Manager (Finance) and look after the financial matter of the company. Later on revisionist promoted as Director (Finance) with effect from 01.04.2016 by respondent no. 2 on behalf of respondent no. 1. In the month of June, 2006, revisionist was seriously ill and not able to move from CR No. 559/18 M. K. Gupta Page 3 of 7 Vs. M/s Vintron Communication Pvt. Ltd. & Others one place to the other. Revisionist has been diagnosed by the doctor and later on in September, 2006, revisionist was again diagnosed for Bone T.B. and doctors advised him complete bed rest for three months. After treatment, revisionist again started going to his office in the month of December, 2006. The respondent no. 2 rumored that revisionist had embezzled the company fund and voluntarily defamed revisionist in the society and the illicit relation with respondent no. 4 Ms. Asha Gupta (wife of revisionist). The respondent no. 2 also succeeded in his tricks and at the end of four month from the appointment of revisionist's wife i.e. respondent no. 4 as a Director with effect from 01.01.2007, revisionist was forced to resign from the Board of Directors on 01.01.2007. Later on, revisionist was also forced by respondent no. 2 to resign from the company on 03.05.2007. The respondent no. 2 made false allegations against the revisionist purposely just to defame him for causing wrong loss of goodwill/reputation and spoiling his reputation amongst the officials to whom the statement given just to take wrongful advantage with a planned way. The statement has been circulated by respondent no. 2 on behalf of respondent no. 1 in between common friends, relatives, government officials and local locality where revisionist was residing just to tarnish the image of revisionist. Respondent no. 3 and 4 also having full knowledge about false allegation made by respondent no. 2 on behalf of respondent no. 1 and nobody objected for this act of respondent no.

Vs. M/s Vintron Communication Pvt. Ltd. & Others 2 and therefore all respondents hatched a conspiracy to defame the revisionist with a planned way. The revisionist also sent legal notice dated 05.12.2012 to respondents through speed post to tender unconditional apology to revisionist and to pay a sum of Rs.25,00,000/­ as damage jointly and severally for making false allegations against the revisionist within fifteen days from the date of receipt of this notice, but no reply was given by respondents. Thereafter, the revisionist filed a criminal complaint under Section 499 & 500 read with 120B IPC against respondents dated 06.02.2013. The said criminal complaint was dismissed by Ld. MM vide order dated 03.04.2018 against which the present criminal revision petition has been filed.

3. Ld. Counsel for respondents submits that the order of Ld. MM does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality.

4. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist argued on the lines of his revision petition and grounds thereof.

5. I have heard the arguments advanced by both the parties and carefully perused the record.

6. Before proceeding further, I deemed it fit to reproduce Section 499 and 500 IPC which are read as under-

Vs. M/s Vintron Communication Pvt. Ltd. & Others Section 499 IPC - Defamation. - Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person.

Section 500 IPC - Punishment for defamation.-

Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

7. In the present case, revisionist had stated that offence of defamation was committed by the respondents by making false and baseless allegations in their pleadings filed before the Courts in various litigations. The main grievance of the revisionist was that false allegations have been levelled by respondents against him regarding embezzlement of funds so as to cause loss of his goodwill /reputation amongst the officials to whom the said statements were given. In order to constitute an offence of criminal defamation, it is mandatory that such imputation made by accused persons must lower the moral or intellectual character of that person or the character of that person in respect of his case or his calling, or lowers the credit of that person or causes it to be believed that body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally CR No. 559/18 M. K. Gupta Page 6 of 7 Vs. M/s Vintron Communication Pvt. Ltd. & Others considered as disgraceful, in the estimation of others. Further, not even a single witness was examined by the revisionist as a part of pre­summoning evidence to prove that the reputation of the complainant was indeed lowered in their estimation directly or indirectly due to the imputation made by respondents. In absence of such evidence regarding lowering of her estimation in the eyes of others, the revisionist's claim of having been defamed criminally by all the accused persons failed to stand upon its own legs. Furthermore, the fact that several other cases are already pending between the parties. There is no sufficient material on record to prove the allegations made by the revisionist against the respondents.

8. In the light of the above discussion, I do not find any illegality, infirmity or perversity in order dated 03.04.2018 passed by Ld. MM. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition stands dismissed.

Criminal Revision Petition record be consigned to record room.

Trial Court Record, if any, be sent back to court concerned along with copy of order.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT     (GULSHAN KUMAR)
ON 25.01.2020              ASJ­03, S.E., SAKET COURTS
                                     NEW DELHI

CR No. 559/18                        M. K. Gupta                    Page 7 of 7
                                        Vs.

M/s Vintron Communication Pvt. Ltd. & Others