Karnataka High Court
Sri A K Nayar vs Sri Ramachandran Paleri on 9 February, 2017
Author: John Michael Cunha
Bench: John Michael Cunha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6349 OF 2011
BETWEEN:-
1. SRI A K NAYAR
S/O KRISHNAN NAYAR
AGED 62 YEARS
R/AT NO. 48, SESHADRI ROAD
MARAPPA GARDEN
BANGALORE-560046
2. SRI C P K NAIR
S/O LATE K P NAIR
AGED 69 YEARS
R/AT MADHU VILLE
2/2, 1ST MAIN, SULTHANPALYA
BANGALORE-560032
3. SRI T N M NAMBIAR
S/O O V RAGHVAN
AGED 73 YEARS
R/AT NO. 836, POONATH
8TH MAIN, V BLOCK, BEL LAYOUT
VIDYARANYAPURA, BANGALORE-560097
4. SRI P G NAIR
S/O LATE M POONUPALLAI
AGED 69 YEARS
R/AT NO.21, APASARAS
S B M OFFICERS COLONY
2ND CROSS, MATHIKERE
BANGALORE-560054
2
5. SRI N KRISHNA PILLAI
S/O LATE K RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
AGED 52 YEARS
R/AT NO. 35, VENKATESHWARA NILAYAM
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
T DASARAHALLI P.O
BANGALORE-560057
6. SQ. LDR. (RETD.) SRI GOPINATH
LATE K GOVINDA PILLAI
AGED 74 YEARS
RA/T NO. 734/9, SREE GOVIND
VINAYAKA NAGAR
BANGALORE-560017
7. SRI GOPINATH K M
LATE K M KAIMAL
AGED 65 YEARS
R/AT NO.313, 1ST FLOOR
24TH MAIN ROAD, VI PHASE, J P NAGAR
BANGALORE-560078
8. SRI V K RAVEENDRAN
S/O LATE V.K.V. PILLAI
AGED 49 YEARS
R/AT NO. 18, SOBANAM
III CROSS, AKSHAYNAGA
II BLOCK, KOWDANAHALLI
RAMAMURTHYNAGAR,
BANGALORE-560016. ... PETITIONERS
(By Sri: TOMY SEBASTIAN, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
M/S TOMY SABASTIAN ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES)
AND:
SRI RAMACHANDRAN PALERI
S/O K V K NAIR
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
R/AT NO.8, SHREYAS, VIII CROSS
3
V MAIN ROAD, GANGANAGAR
BANGALORE-560032. ... RESPONDENT
(By Sri: K SUMAN, ADVOCATE )
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S. 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ORDER DATED:30.6.11 IN C.C.NO.20781/11 (PCR
NO.1270/10) ON THE FILE OF THE VII ACMM, BANGALORE,
REGISTERING THE CASE AGAINST THE PETRS. FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/S 120(B), 500 IPC R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC AND
ISSUING SUMMONS FOR THE APPEARANCE OF THE PETR.
BEFORE THE SAID COURT AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
IN THE SAID CASE.
THIS CRL. P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
This petition is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the order dated 30.6.2011 in C.C.No.20781/2011(PCR No.1270/2010) on the file of the VII Addl. CMM, Bengaluru registered for the offences punishable under sections 120(B), 500 Indian Penal Code r/w 34 Indian Penal Code.
2. The petitioners were the members of the Karnataka Nair Service Society(Regd) Bengaluru('KNSS' for short). The petitioners issued a notice to the Office bearers of the said society viz., the respondent herein and two others alleging 4 that by entering into an Memorandum of Understanding('MOU' for short) with M/s. Confident Group Projects India Ltd., , the interest of the members has been jeopardized. In the said notice, the petitioners alleged that the proposal of the housing project as mentioned in the said MOU was never discussed in the General Council Meeting and was not a subject matter of any discussion in any meeting. Further in the notice, the petitioners alleged that under the said MOU, it was stated that the receipts against bookings and allotment of sites were to be held in the joint account of KNSS and M/s. Confident group. According to the petitioners, the action of the office bearers of the society was not in the interest of the society and amounted to financial irregularities and therefore the said notice was issued alleging that all the office bearers in connivance with M/s. Confident Group Project India Ltd., have committed grave irregularities with calculated intentions to make illegal gains to enrich themselves and to defraud the members. It was alleged that the whole action of the office bearers amounted to cheating and fraud and all of them were liable for the criminal action. 5
3. Contending that the contents of the above notice were defamatory, the respondent herein filed PCR No.1270/2010 seeking prosecution of the petitioners herein for the alleged offences under Sections 120-B and 500 r/w 34 Indian Penal Code. Before the learned Magistrate, the complainant examined himself and reiterated the contentions made in the complaint and based on the oral statement and the contents of the complaint, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and has issued process to the petitioners. In the impugned order, the learned Magistrate has specifically extracted the portion of the above offending material as attracting the offence under section 499 Indian Penal Code which reads as under :
"the complainant and two other office bearers of the KNSS society in connivance with M/s. Confident Group have committed grave irregularities with calculated intentions to make illegal gains to enrich themselves and to defraud the members'.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondent.
6
5. The learned counsel for the respondent has referred to the decision reported in CHAMAN LAL -vs- THE STATE OF PUNJAB reported in AIR 1970 SC 1372.
6. It is not in dispute that at the relevant point of time, the petitioners herein were the members of the KNSS(society). It is also not in dispute that the respondent herein as well as two others to whom the notice was issued were the office bearers of the said society. The allegations made in the notice on the face of it pertain to the management of the society as well as on the functioning of the office bearers of the society. The petitioners took serious objection to the action of the office bearers in taking a unilateral decision in entering into the MOU with M/s. Confident Group without concurrence of the members of the General Body. No-doubt, it is true that in the said notice, it was alleged that there was connivance and an element of fraud in the entire decision taken by the office bearers in entering into the said MOU. But in order to understand the import and the implication of this statement, it has to be read in the context of the entire allegations and 7 not in isolation, to find out whether this statement constitutes defamation within the meaning of Section 499 of Indian Penal Code.
7. In order to appreciate the controversy, it is relevant to note that pursuant to the said notice, the petitioners herein approached the District Registrar of Cooperative Societies who is the competent authority in relation to the affairs of the Societies. The records reveal that the Registrar of Societies directed enquiry into the said allegations. The order of the District Registrar was challenged before this Court by the respondent and two other office bearers in W.P.No.9965/2009 and W.P.No.11513- 11515/2009. The said writ petitions having been dismissed, the respondent and other office bearers carried the matter in appeal. Even the said appeals viz., W.A.No.4858/2010 and connected matters were dismissed. The aforesaid proceedings clearly indicate that the allegations made against the office bearers were not baseless and were not intended to malign the name of the respondent herein.
8
8. The offending portion on which the learned Magistrate has relied does not manifest the ingredients of the offence of defamation. A reading of the notice indicate that it was issued to ventilate the grievances of the members of the society regarding the functioning of the office bearers and the unilateral decision taken by them, which according to the petitioners amounted to financial irregularities and affected the interest of members of the society. There is absolutely nothing in the said notice or in the consequent action taken by the members to indicate that they were obliquely motivated or intended to malign the names of the office bearers. On the other hand, the follow up action taken by the petitioners by approaching the competent authorities, clearly demonstrate that the members of the society were interested in vindicating their rights with a view to safe guard the interest of the society. In this context, it is also relevant to note that the aforesaid notice was issued directly to the office bearers of the society and was not circulated to any general public. If the members of the society were interested in 9 maligning the names of the office bearers, these allegations would have been widely published. That is not the case. On going though the contents of the notice in the backdrop of the circumstances discussed above, I am of the view that the allegations contained in the notice do not attract any of the ingredients of Section 499 Indian Penal Code. I am of the opinion that the initiation of the proceedings against the petitioners by way of lodging the private complaint is wholly unwarranted and is intended to settle personal scores against the petitioners for having questioned the functioning of the respondent. In that view of the matter, the initiation of proceedings against the petitioners is an abuse of the process of law and against the interest of justice. Hence, the petition is allowed. The FIR and the consequent proceedings arising therefrom in C.C.No.20781/2011 pending on the file of VII Addl. ACMM, Bengaluru are quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE *mn/-