Karnataka High Court
M/S Nnr Global Logistics vs B.K.Devaiah on 5 April, 2024
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:14201
CRL.RP No. 143 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.143 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. M/S. NNR GLOBAL LOGISTICS
INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,
NO.998/3, I FLOOR,
3RD CROSS, I BLOCK,
HRBR LAYOUT,
BANGALORE-560 032.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED PERSON
MR. PARANTHAMAN
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRASHANTH B.K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by SHARANYA T 1. B.K.DEVAIAH,
Location: HIGH S/O KUTTAPPA,
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
KARNATAKA
NO.26/1, SAPTHAGIRI NILAYA,
4TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN,
CPV BLOCK, GANGANAGAR,
R.T.NAGAR POST,
BANGALORE-560 032.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI N.R.NAIK, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16.11.2021
PASSED BY THE LEARNED XI ACMM, BANGALORE IN
PCR.NO.55812/2019 AND DIRECT THE MAGISTRATE TO
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:14201
CRL.RP No. 143 of 2022
PROCEED WITH FURTHER PROCEED WITH FURTHER ENQUIRY
INTO THE COMPLAINT OF THE R.P.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This criminal revision petition is filed against the order dated 16.11.2021 passed in PCR No.55812/2019, dismissing the complaint filed by the revision petitioner invoking the offence punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the revision petitioner before the Trial Court is that the revision petitioner is a Private Limited Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and having a branch at Bengaluru. The revision petitioner is a Japanese MNC with over 18,000 employees across the globe and is engaged in the business of logistics and freight forwarding and is represented by its authorized signatory, Mr.Paranthanam, who filed the said complaint before the Trial Court. It is the contention that the revision petitioner has employed around 75 employees in India and the respondent was one of such employees employed by the revision petitioner at its -3- NC: 2024:KHC:14201 CRL.RP No. 143 of 2022 Bangalore office. The respondent joined the services of the revision petitioner as the 'Operations Executive' with effect from 20.03.2010 vide order of appointment dated 20.03.2010. The respondent was given increment along with promotion with effect from 01.04.2016 considering his performance. The respondent was working in the capacity of Senior Executive - Operations. When the things stood thus, the revision petitioner terminated the services of the respondent vide order of termination dated 16.06.2017 by paying him two months' salary.
4. Being aggrieved by his termination, the respondent has challenged the same in I.D.No.15/2018 and an order was passed to reinstate the respondent with continuity of service, but declined to grant any backwages and other consequential benefits. The said order was challenged by the revision petitioner before this Court by filing W.P.No.41154/2019 and the same was stayed vide order dated 06.12.2019 and currently the writ petition is pending before this Court. However, immediately after passing of the aforesaid award by the Labour Court, the respondent started posting various malicious and defamatory posts against the petitioner Company and its Senior management staff in social media by using his LinkedIn ID - -4-
NC: 2024:KHC:14201 CRL.RP No. 143 of 2022 Devaiah B.K. The said LinkedIn is a social media platform mainly used by the professionals across the globe with more than 50 crore global users. One should be responsible, careful and sensitive while posting any messages or comments in such social platforms since such messages or comments can be viewed by millions. In the instant case, postings made by the respondent against the petitioner and its senior officers were not only false, but also extremely scandalous in nature and directed mainly malign and tarnish their reputation in the public. Mr. Paranthaman, Branch Manager at the petitioner's Company, Bangalore Branch has been working for the past six years with the petitioner Company and it was utterly uncalled for the respondent to make reckless comments such as corrupt, psycho, culprit, etc. against him. The respondent also stated that the Branch Manager of the petitioner Company at Bangalore has converted the office into brothel house. Likewise, it was unwarranted and uncalled for the respondent to drag the name of Mr. Manish Singh, the Managing Director of the petitioner Company in his untenable and malicious posts and comments.
5. In support of the averments made in the petition, the petitioner examined before the Trial Court and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 15. The learned counsel for the -5- NC: 2024:KHC:14201 CRL.RP No. 143 of 2022 revision petitioner would contend that in support of the present revision petition also, the documents are filed before the Court with regard to correspondence taken place between both of them. Apart from that, the learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court with regard to the allegations made against the Company, particularly document of Ex.P.14(a), wherein scandalous allegations are made against the petitioner. The learned counsel would contend that when such defamatory and scandalous statements are made, the Trial Court ought to have taken note of the same. The Trial Court failed to take note of the fact that scandalous statement was made in the social media that too the same has been viewed by more than millions of people. The Trial Court though referred the said documents of Exs.P.14 and 14(a), made an observation that there is no use of vulgar words against the complainant with an intention to insult him or his MD and comes to the conclusion that mere criticism is not a defamation and termination order is criticized by the accused, but he has not made any allegations with an intention to defame the complainant. The Trial Court also not discussed anything about the words, which have been used in the said social media and hence committed an error. The learned counsel would contend that Ex.P.14(a) which is marked before -6- NC: 2024:KHC:14201 CRL.RP No. 143 of 2022 the Trial Court is very clear about using of defamatory and scandalous statement against the Company and Company Managing Director as well as authorized person, who is the petitioner herein.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Trial Court has not committed any error in rejecting the private complaint and the same is not defamatory in nature. The Trial Court rightly observed that the same is not defamatory in nature and only criticism is made with regard to the action taken by the petitioner herein and also petition is filed in the name of the Company and not against individual capacity and hence the very private complaint itself is not maintainable.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and having taken note of the averments made in the complaint, which is filed before the Court, this Court has secured the original records since there was a mis-description in the document filed along with the revision petition document and in order to peruse the original documents, the original documents are secured. Having taken note of the original documents, particularly taking note of the document of Ex.P.14(a), a scandalous statement is made in -7- NC: 2024:KHC:14201 CRL.RP No. 143 of 2022 the social media LinkedIn referring the Branch Manager of the petitioner Company as culprit, who is looting NNR money by submitting fake bills and also made a scandalous statement that he converted the office as brothel house and still the management is supporting him to loot NNR money. Even the name of the Managing Director was also referred making allegation against both of them that you both cannot hide the truth and mind it. These are the words, which has not been discussed by the Trial Court and the Trial Court erroneously comes to the conclusion in paragraph No.5 and an observation is made that on perusal of Exs.P.14 and 14(a), it is noticed there is no use of vulgar words against the complainant with an intention to insult him or his Managing Director. The respondent made an allegation against the Branch Manager of the petitioner Company of converting the Company as brothel house and nothing is considered by the Trial Court. In the sworn statement of the complainant, which was recorded on 03.04.2021, the complainant categorically made the statement that the respondent had used LinkedIn social media and made defamatory statement and the same is viewed by more than 50 crores of people and the same is a professional network. It affects the image of the Company and the Managing Director -8- NC: 2024:KHC:14201 CRL.RP No. 143 of 2022 and the Managing Director is calling him and enquiring about the same and also made the statement that as a result of the same, the business of the Company also is reduced. When such oral statement is recorded and the document, particularly Ex.P.14(a) is produced and marked, the Trial Court committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the allegations made in the social media is not defamatory in nature and the very approach of the Trial Court is erroneous and it requires interference of this Court. The Trial Court committed an error in considering the ingredients of the offence under Section 499 of IPC and the offence which was invoked by the complainant under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC and not only an attack is made against the complainant, but also against the Company. Hence, I do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that only an allegation is made in individual capacity and private complaint cannot be maintained. Having considered the reasoning given by the Trial Court, it requires interference of this Court by exercising the revisional jurisdiction and hence the impugned order requires to be set aside.
8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:14201 CRL.RP No. 143 of 2022 ORDER
(i) The revision petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 16.11.2021 passed in PCR No.55812/2019, is set aside and cognizance is taken for the offence punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC.
(iii) The Trial Court is directed to proceed against the respondent in accordance with law.
(iv) The observations made by this Court in this criminal revision petition shall not influence the Trial Court while considering the matter on merits.
Sd/-
JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54