Karnataka High Court
Mr C M Ibrahim S/O Late C M K Ali vs Tata Sons Ltd Regd Office At Bombay on 31 May, 2008
Equivalent citations: 2009 CRI. L. J. 228, 2008 (6) AIR KANT HCR 250 (2009) 3 KCCR 1599, (2009) 3 KCCR 1599
Author: H N Nagamohan Das
Bench: H N Nagamohan Das
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS TEE 31" DAY OF 2002 A
BEFORE __ _
THE HON'BLE MR. EUSTICE NAGAMOHAN _ ' L.
CRMNAL PETITION No. '1' ' '
BETWEEN :
--and-I-u-nu-inn--1:
MRCMmRAI~mvI
S/O LATECMKALI V
AGED ABOU1" 54YRS _ ~.
1120 NO 31, BENSGN CROSS Roan: V
OFF NANDIDURG ROAD O
BENSONTOWN
BANGALGRE 46. . :.}'PETI'IIONER
(By Sri. M 1: NAN_§u.Ar: C§3L?NSiéI.,«. FOR
s:2&uDAYB;.1aEBDf{;-f v;:.;:.----
AND :
TATA sowsxgrn " - V
REGD O¥:'::«f1crEO' AT BORBAY
HOUSE RC)' 24,; ~1~IOm MODY"S'I'R.EET
MUIvIBA.I_4GQ (301
REP__.B"I:"V V' i£EIx1AC}£é}1)ER
BANGALORE; « RESPONDEN'3'.'
V (By Sri.C H HA:\m?3§iANTHARAYA, ADV.)
---.-
CRL--.P IS FILED 333.432 CR.P.C Wm: A PRAYER TO
Q_U_A;"1'.H"E"'xE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NC). xms/2904 ON
mm OF C.M.M,, BANGALORE.
TEES AL PETITION COMING ON FOR IEARING
'*~ "H113 DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING;
) V!\/
in)
Q_R.I2.E.K
in this petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entizfe
proceedings in C.C. No. 1174812004 pending on the file of
Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore.
2. The respondent contends that on 24.03.2004 the at i
press meeting at Bangaiore and made defamatory allegetieizg .igeiz1et*ttie__.i A respondent ---- Tata Sons Limited ('the for 'lI'he':'; allegations made by the petitioner came ittpreeis on 25.03.2004 in two daily English Tixneéiiofindia and The Asian Age. The Times of India; as under:
"Speakir;Tg4tti;jee§3(vrtets here; 'When I was civil Veensgzired with the Tatas te_.£.<I.¢? V acres of land.
they algio t1'ietllltelviiiIil)ae this."
The Aeiazt 'A4geltrept3i*,ecl":ts V _ , u"'F0zmer aviation minister CPM. Ibrahim ._ " auliemb-shell by claiming that major "l'it:1:cfe§t1'ies minister RV. Deshpende had 'efl'ered it money to clear the state _ goiiextxrzxeriteipromal ta give laitd to the Tatas on 3 V basis for the Devanahalii intemational airport. _ it Acidressing at press conference, Mr. Ibrahim alleged Deshpande wanted to airport at Devanahelti and it ,..eought to Centre's clearance for the same. "He xxx d4/V 3 (Deslzpande) oifered money to me but I refused though We were '31 the same party." He added."
3. The respondent ~»« Company on coming to know of these allegations made in the press, wrote a letter to the petitioner on 25.03.2x(iO4:' T . seeking confirmation with regard to the statement attributed iotiie' ;. A4 and called upon the petitioner to tender an unconditional it to he published with equal prominence as the ' _ newseflner which carried the petitioner failed to reoly to the letter of the ff "filed a private criminal complaint l_tfi*iai" xiV"o.': «S832/2604 under Section 2% Cr.P.(i. Iiocier Section 499 and 500 QC. it iswom statement of the authorised reoieseotetiire' ~»~ Company by name Sri. V. had' of the private complaint and in 11748/2994 and issued summons.
Ag'gf_ie'eed E}; the trial Court taking cogiisance of the offence, i it i'»....v.tVhe is this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking . of the ueijtire proceedings before the trial Court. ' .. A4.' titis not in dispute that during the pendency of this petition the l ' "V. petitiofiexi eopeared befoxe the trial Conn and on 28.03.2007 the plea of the h ' ' » . _ 2 was recorded. Now the matter is set down for evidence. 19-?
We or appeal against the impugied order of triai Court taking cotmizance of offence, issuing process and recording plea, the present crirttinal petitioit under Sec.482 Cr.P.C is not maintainaeie. This conteiitioit it counsel for respondent is unacceptable to me.
9. The Supreme Court in We :Feoi1su'I,ttil._sfS;. dsecciettic f Judicial Magistrate (AIR 1993 sc 223}.iie1d "'tt§tt" the discharge the accused at any stage of the he coiiijidets 'the cltarge to be goundiess, but that does notntzietm caxttiot epproach the High Court under section egg}: 227 of the Constitution to have 'theVL:t1§)roceedi:;gl:-3.7 vvaegiiitet him when the complaint does it and still he must undergo thetaeoiiy trial i I "It xiiot of that provisions exist in the code of revision appeal'-bttt'vsorfie time for immediate relief Sec.482 of it tji2~e_Cocte $1'$iCl~€A227 1t1t1§)"'i'xa'§'e to be resorted for correcting some grave tliat titéfitiinttnitted by the subordinate courts." it Vs. State of UP 2000(2) SCC 636 the Supreme held" ffiiierely because the accused persons had already filed an in the court of Additional Magistrate for their discharge, it be urged that the High Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction under V V" _ llffieefion 482 of the Code."
Opt"
10. The word 'inherent powers' specified in Section 482 is not defined h": the Code. But throufii several judicial pronouncements the Aeex court held as to when the High Court can exercise the in.t1ere;it"--,T powers. If the High Court is satisfied that there is great miscat_13'.a_:geVoofe:4"Ve~ '4 justice or abuse of the process of the court or the required".sjtatoter§ erovisions had not been complied with or to seeerieiithe ofjoetiee, that event, it is but the duty of court to have it the ifzeeption \ / , ,, ' exercising its inherent powers. 'the ani'pt€._ta{ie._ powers of this court under Seetiott offlte V'ieA_11ot effected..%;§.z the existence of revisional and apoeltate '1-e:t:edy_ the code. But this inherent power s£1ait'n_et of rate but exeeptionaliy, spariatgiy Now I have to examine whett;er__fl1efe.VeXi;etg::'_ in this case for exereisingthe i
11. The Aeegtteattiotz $exdor eounsei for the ;}€fifi0I1€§' that the audaorised rei)1e.eentaiive."of the respondent -~ Company is not an é1;'e_d"esA each tiieieornplaixtt befoze the iriat Court is Iiabie to be is to me. Section 199 Cr.P.C. specifies that no V she¥.1':takeVeo§i§:2.e.nce of an ofience punishable under Chapter 21 of
-. -except a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the Criminal Procedure Code do not define as to what is meant ' person. But Section 13 of IPC defines the word 'person' to include g--..» ':' any company or association or body of persons Whether incorporated or not. It is not in dispute that respondent -~ Company is a registered pobIi_c*._V tjmited company. It is this cootpaoy which is the corI1pIai11ant_oefoi'e.V't!1e_V'e. :_. A' trial Court in P.C.R. No. 53322004. The rwoondent --~ compafiyttgieatjoae T compiaint before the trial Court through its autf}orise(:14Treg}1*eset:t3ti\ire;--Itje X: T neediess to say that a company is a persofoixg law hoot in feet; in law is always, required to be ' a 'vv"Vf;§1e respondent - Company by a oersoo to fite and prosecute the private compiaint Goi1tt;.:'V'.AxcoordingIy, the respondent -- fxfied through its authorised repxesetitotttre. representative who is a patty beforeVti§e"'t1'iztt: otiieietzigod it is the respondent ---- Company who' isthe the trial Court. It is the respondent -- eéhoh his "a9;:gdeved person '31 the instant case. of a eo1ng3i§;j1;t.by an aggieved company through its Vaethor§eedVz-eoresentotive is in accordance with law and the same is mairttaitiable. 'V 'V ' "
he Seoohdly learned senior counsel for the petitioner contended prior leave of the Court the authotised representative of the
--~ Company filed the petition before the trial Cow and as such the same is liable to be quashed. In support of this contention the learned counsel for the petitioner olaced reiianoe on a decision of the Suoreme C/_}__1~T{ 10 the other hand the law laid down by the Kerala High Court in Fr. Thomas's case will support of the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent - Company.
14. Learned senior counsel for die petitioner contended that press reports in question specifies the name of former Deshpande and also Tatas. It is contended thatthefonnerhtniriieterV'S:'i_,'_":V«' Desheande has not initiated any criminal gfirooeedirigs iii petitioner and as such respondent -- Coinmny alone is notentitied. to-5 maintain a private :VagaineAt to accept this argument of the Ieac-'filed: If for any reason the former to join the respondent --
Company in 'they or his failure to maintain a separate petition aRgazinistv.the petitionenis not a bar or impediment for the reseondentt' Comparw.'to'--~m=op_ee.d against the petitioner for the atlegeé defeIt'.etien,V E=e%EereIy«.t§$eeause the former minister Sri. Deshpande keeps si1ent"rri;ett_er;;.itv cannot be presumed that the respondent -
(v)omeanyl'é}2all"--e:Ieo'i{eep silent over the matter. Therefore the respondent Conroany is entitled to maintain an independent complaint irrespective whether the former minister Szi. Deshpande joins them or fails T to 'file-eseparate complaint.
«'\/ Cjtjv ll
35. The other contention of the learned senior counsei for the oetitionet that even in the list of witnesses produced by the respondent mm Company before the trial Court the name of Sri. Deshpande who is a Veiy vital and important Witness is not mentioned and therefore on "
the groeeedings before the trial Court are liable to be i" ' -- unfounded. Iffor any reason the respondent ~ if "azzy refI1ses.orf;.its;'t(A§tv examine a materiai Witness which throw light oii.the--iesue i1z"cvozit:%overs}},"~~. it certainly it is open for the trial Court to ad»/terse. irferencetogainet such party tinder Section Il4{g}.9f the i There some force in the contention of the learhedh the respondent ~ Company that it is alweys__ before the judgment is trial to" 'fi.§$'£'idditi0il&i list of Witnesses or to irwokethe Cr.P.C. to summon a Witness who is essentitilforv jost_ 4£¥i_s§3o:s;'23'l of the case. Therefore in the '_.r;iTi:urnste13aV;c.es the faiitiree-.toVVciteA.tI1e former minister Sri. RV. Deshpande "as 3 vkzithes.-3 of witnesses by the respondent ~» Company is not fatef toitlhg eai's'e'.eoh_i'péiny and on this ground the proceedings cannot be i it quashed} he VI6. teamed senior counsel for the petitioner contended that a 'plei1t.vrea.dii1g of the two press reports relied on by the respondent «~-- before the triai Court, even if they are taken as true, do not
-eohstitute an offence under Swtion 499 IFC. The trial Court by considering the averments in the private complaint, the sworn statement
o)~'/Vb 12 and the documents produced by the respondent ~-- Company conchteies, that there is a prima facie case to be tried against the petitioner. This conclusion of the trial Court is supported by material on record. Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. it is not proper for this Court to screen or _ material on record at this stage and to conclude that there is no fit i"
is always oeen for the petitioner before the _t_:riaMl__(3our_t' to defence and to establish the same by placiiié'acceptahlei_ This Court at this stage by aocept?e'i§:_t:E1ei:.rjieol~..eontentiionsiViof the parties shat! not conclude on the merits' position of law that interference -Coert power Section 432 cr.1=.c:."isi exception. Ido not find any exercise my discretionary power to qttaehthe "before oial Court at this stage.
17. The alleged inciéiontiiétti taken place in March 2004, the corngaiaintgeas filed piea was recorded in the year 2007 noweee Having regard to the iength of time consumed, the nettxre offence intention and also by taking into consideration the iiiiinterest of._botl3ivtireVo¥ar£ies, I am of the opinion that a direction is required " " -it iestzed {ante oi;-11 Court to dispose the matter '31 accordance with law it*iti1in'a--tiI_rie flame.
For the reasons stated above. the following; dr"
LRS:'02062008.
ORIIIER Cziminal petitien is hereby dismissed. V The trial Court is directed to dispose the accordance with law within a ti':-*:1cu,'i'.azne fiem the date ofreceipt ofcopy 2 'V 'V A12 the other contentions a1Vc Iéfi..Qpen§ ' - A