K.M. Selvaraj Vs. A. Amarlal - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- ordera. ramamurthi, j.1. petitioner is the complainant in c.c. 2510 of 1997 and aggrieved against the orders passed in cri. m.p. no. 67 of 1998 by the learned ii metropolitan magistrate, egmore, chornai, the present revision is filed.2. the case in brief is as follows :- the petitioner/complainant filed a complaint under section 500, ipc before the learned magistrate against 4 named accused and the learned magistrate had taken the case on file in c.c. no. 2510 of 1997. subsequently, the third accused filed cri. m.p. no. 67 of 1998 under section 204 of the code of criminal procedure on the ground that he is only a signatory to the letter containing reference to an allegation made by one of the members and calling upon the others to attend a meeting to discuss the issue and, as such, no offence under section 500, ipc is made out and sought for discharge. the complainant filed a counter and opposed the application and after hearing both the parties the learned magistrate allowed the application and aggrieved against this, the complainant has filed the present revision petition.3. heard the learned counsel of both sides.4. the points that arise for consideration are-1) whether the order of discharge passed by the court below is proper and correct ?2) to what relief ?5. points :- it is admitted that the petitioner filed a private complaint under section 500, ipc against four accused. out of the four accused, the third accused filed a petition under section 204 of the code of criminal procedure. he is a chaterted accountant by profession. the only document that could possibly connect him with the offence of defamation is the letter dated 1 -10-1996. the complainant is a veterinary doctor. the complainant as well as accused 1 to 3 are residents of rajendra apartments, kilpauk. they joined together and formed an association registered under the societies registration act. the complainant functioned as the president of the association during the period august, 1993 to september, 1996. the letter dated 1-10-1996 was addressed to the flat owners drawing their attention to the minutes of the e.c. meeting held on 22-9-1996 and to the general body meeting proposed to be held on 6-10-1996. para 3 of the letter reads as follows :as you know, mr. sukumaran has alleged that dr. selvaraj has manipulated the accounts and misappropriated the association's funds. he has also disclosed how he has resisted dr. selvaraj's attempts to tax' the flat owners, which has greatly benefited us. dr. selvaraj has not refuted or cleared himself of the charge by showing the accounts which amounts to admissing his guilt. 6. learned counsel for the respondent contended that the attention of the flat owners alone was drawn to the allegation with a request to them to attend the general body meeting and express their views. he is not a signatory in respect of the other circulars relied on by the complainant. it cannot be said that the third accused has committed the offence under section 500, ipc and he was only a signatory to the letter containing reference to the allegation made by one of the members and he had bona fidely called upon the others to attend the general body meeting. the continuance of the proceedings against him will be in the nature of harassment.7. learned counsel for the petitioner complainant contended that the admission of the third accused that he signed the letter dated 10-10-1996 which contains the earlier defamatory statements made by the first accused against the complainant itself is an offence under section 500, ipc. the third accused being a signatory to the document is liable for the offence. it is stated that the third accused and others had inspected the accounts and he confirmed the apprehension of misappropriation of the complainant. no case has been made out by the third accused for discharge. while so, the complaint and the other documents would reveal that all the accused joined themselves and issued circulars to all the flat owners containing defamatory allegation of misappropriation of the association's funds. there is no prima facie material to proceed further against the third accused also. the observation made by the trial court that the third accused might have made the allegation in good faith on behalf of the flat owners is erroneous. whether he had made the allegations in good faith or not has to be decided only at the conclusion of the trial. any imputation expressed ironically may amount to defamation under explanation 3 of section 499, ipc. the circular dated 1-10-1996 contains only defamatory allegation and, as such, the third accused also should be proceeded further.8. a bare reading of the complaint clearly indicates that there is dispute between the occupants of the flats and defamatory allegations have been made against the complainant, who happened to be the president of the association for a period of three years. the third accused is a chartered accountant by profession and the complainant is a veterinary doctor. the complaint is based upon number of circulars dated 25-6-1996, 1-10-1996, 6-10-1996 and 9-10-1996. now, it is admitted that the third accused is one of the signatories to the circular dated 1-10-1996 and admittedly this circular has been circulated to all the occupants of the flats. it is also seen from the circular dated 1-10-196, that the president, meaning the complainant, has manipulated the accounts and misappropriated the association funds. it is also disclosed how they have resisted the president's attempts to tax the flat owners. further, the complainant has not refuted or cleared himself of the charge by showing the accounts which amounts to admitting his guilt. it is therefore evidently clear that prima facie, it contained defamatory averments. now, the learned counsel for the third accused contended that since other persons had signed in the said circular, he had also signed the same. it is pertinent to point out that the accounts have also been verified by the third accused, who happend to be a chartered accountant by profession and the allegations are levelled against the complainant that he had misappropriated the funds of the association and wanted the matter deeply probed into. there is prima facie material to proceed against the petitioner also along with the other accused.9. learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the court below has not appreciated the contentions raised by the parties. it is stated in para 9 of the order that there is a chance to presume that the third accused would have signed in the document along with others only in good faith on behalf of the flat owners. it is matter to be concluded only on the basis of evidence at a later point of time. now, the court below has come to the rescue of the third accused and the reasoning given by the court below appears to be a special pleading in favour of the accused. when there are defamatory allegations and prima facie material is available to proceed against a particular person, the discharge made is not proper and correct. apart from the third accused, other persons are also signatories and all of them have joined together and circulated the statements containing defamatory allegations and naturally all of them have to face the consequences and i am of the view that the discharge made by the court below is not proper and correct.10. learned counsel for the respondent relied on the decision reported in jawaharlal darda v. manoharrao ganpatrao kapsikar wherein it was stated as follows (para 5) :-it is quite apparent that what the accused had published in its newspaper was an accurate and true report of the proceedings of the assembly involvement of the respondent was disclosed by the preliminary enquiry made by the government. if the accused bona fide believing the version of the minister to be true published the report in good faith it cannot be said that they intended to harm the reputation of the complainant. it was a report in respect of public conduct of public servants who were entrusted with public funds intended to be used for public good. thus the facts and circumstances of the case disclose that the news items were published for public good. there is no dispute about this principle but it has no application to the case on hand since the legislature proceedings in entirety have been published and as such, such a view was taken; but in the present case, it is evidently clear that defamatory allegations have been levelled against the complainant and only in the course of trial, it can be established whether there is any basis or justification. the order passed by the court below is not proper and correct and as such, it is liable to be set aside.11. for the reasons stated above, the revision is allowed and the order passed by the court below in crl. m.p. no. 67 of 1998 is set aside and crl. m.p. no. 67 of 1998 is dismissed. the trial court is directed to dispose of the case against all the accused within a period of four months in accordance with law.

Judgment:
ORDER

A. Ramamurthi, J.

1. Petitioner is the complainant in C.C. 2510 of 1997 and aggrieved against the orders passed in Cri. M.P. No. 67 of 1998 by the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chornai, the present revision is filed.

2. The case in brief is as follows :- The petitioner/complainant filed a complaint under Section 500, IPC before the learned Magistrate against 4 named accused and the learned Magistrate had taken the case on file in C.C. No. 2510 of 1997. Subsequently, the third accused filed Cri. M.P. No. 67 of 1998 under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that he is only a signatory to the letter containing reference to an allegation made by one of the members and calling upon the others to attend a meeting to discuss the issue and, as such, no offence under Section 500, IPC is made out and sought for discharge. The complainant filed a counter and opposed the application and after hearing both the parties the learned Magistrate allowed the application and aggrieved against this, the complainant has filed the present revision petition.

3. Heard the learned Counsel of both sides.

4. The points that arise for consideration are-

1) Whether the order of discharge passed by the Court below is proper and correct ?

2) To what relief ?

5. Points :- It is admitted that the petitioner filed a private complaint under Section 500, IPC against four accused. Out of the four accused, the third accused filed a petition under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He is a Chaterted Accountant by profession. The only document that could possibly connect him with the offence of defamation is the letter dated 1 -10-1996. The complainant is a Veterinary Doctor. The complainant as well as accused 1 to 3 are residents of Rajendra Apartments, Kilpauk. They joined together and formed an Association registered under the Societies Registration Act. The complainant functioned as the President of the Association during the period August, 1993 to September, 1996. The letter dated 1-10-1996 was addressed to the flat owners drawing their attention to the minutes of the E.C. Meeting held on 22-9-1996 and to the General Body Meeting proposed to be held on 6-10-1996. Para 3 of the letter reads as follows :

As you know, Mr. Sukumaran has alleged that Dr. Selvaraj has manipulated the accounts and misappropriated the Association's funds. He has also disclosed how he has resisted Dr. Selvaraj's attempts to tax' the flat owners, which has greatly benefited us. Dr. Selvaraj has not refuted or cleared himself of the charge by showing the accounts which amounts to admissing his guilt.

6. Learned Counsel for the respondent contended that the attention of the flat owners alone was drawn to the allegation with a request to them to attend the General Body meeting and express their views. He is not a signatory in respect of the other circulars relied on by the complainant. It cannot be said that the third accused has committed the offence under Section 500, IPC and he was only a signatory to the letter containing reference to the allegation made by one of the members and he had bona fidely called upon the others to attend the General Body Meeting. The continuance of the proceedings against him will be in the nature of harassment.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner complainant contended that the admission of the third accused that he signed the letter dated 10-10-1996 which contains the earlier defamatory statements made by the first accused against the complainant itself is an offence under Section 500, IPC. The third accused being a signatory to the document is liable for the offence. It is stated that the third accused and others had inspected the accounts and he confirmed the apprehension of misappropriation of the complainant. No case has been made out by the third accused for discharge. While so, the complaint and the other documents would reveal that all the accused joined themselves and Issued circulars to all the flat owners containing defamatory allegation of misappropriation of the Association's funds. There is no prima facie material to proceed further against the third accused also. The observation made by the trial Court that the third accused might have made the allegation in good faith on behalf of the flat owners is erroneous. Whether he had made the allegations in good faith or not has to be decided only at the conclusion of the trial. Any imputation expressed ironically may amount to defamation under Explanation 3 of Section 499, IPC. The circular dated 1-10-1996 contains only defamatory allegation and, as such, the third accused also should be proceeded further.

8. A bare reading of the complaint clearly indicates that there is dispute between the occupants of the flats and defamatory allegations have been made against the complainant, who happened to be the President of the Association for a period of three years. The third accused is a Chartered Accountant by profession and the complainant is a Veterinary Doctor. The complaint is based upon number of circulars dated 25-6-1996, 1-10-1996, 6-10-1996 and 9-10-1996. Now, it is admitted that the third accused is one of the signatories to the circular dated 1-10-1996 and admittedly this circular has been circulated to all the occupants of the flats. It is also seen from the circular dated 1-10-196, that the President, meaning the complainant, has manipulated the accounts and misappropriated the Association funds. It is also disclosed how they have resisted the President's attempts to tax the flat owners. Further, the complainant has not refuted or cleared himself of the charge by showing the accounts which amounts to admitting his guilt. It is therefore evidently clear that prima facie, it contained defamatory averments. Now, the learned Counsel for the third accused contended that since other persons had signed in the said circular, he had also signed the same. It is pertinent to point out that the accounts have also been verified by the third accused, who happend to be a Chartered Accountant by profession and the allegations are levelled against the complainant that he had misappropriated the funds of the Association and wanted the matter deeply probed into. There is prima facie material to proceed against the petitioner also along with the other accused.

9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Court below has not appreciated the contentions raised by the parties. It is stated in para 9 of the order that there is a chance to presume that the third accused would have signed in the document along with others only in good faith on behalf of the flat owners. It is matter to be concluded only on the basis of evidence at a later point of time. Now, the Court below has come to the rescue of the third accused and the reasoning given by the Court below appears to be a special pleading in favour of the accused. When there are defamatory allegations and prima facie material is available to proceed against a particular person, the discharge made is not proper and correct. Apart from the third accused, other persons are also signatories and all of them have joined together and circulated the statements containing defamatory allegations and naturally all of them have to face the consequences and I am of the view that the discharge made by the Court below is not proper and correct.

10. Learned Counsel for the respondent relied on the decision reported in Jawaharlal Darda v. Manoharrao Ganpatrao Kapsikar wherein it was stated as follows (Para 5) :-

It is quite apparent that what the accused had published in its newspaper was an accurate and true report of the proceedings of the Assembly Involvement of the respondent was disclosed by the preliminary enquiry made by the Government. If the accused bona fide believing the version of the Minister to be true published the report in good faith it cannot be said that they intended to harm the reputation of the complainant. It was a report in respect of public conduct of public servants who were entrusted with public funds intended to be used for public good. Thus the facts and circumstances of the case disclose that the news items were published for public good.

There is no dispute about this principle but it has no application to the case on hand since the Legislature proceedings in entirety have been published and as such, such a view was taken; but in the present case, it is evidently clear that defamatory allegations have been levelled against the complainant and only in the course of trial, it can be established whether there is any basis or justification. The order passed by the Court below is not proper and correct and as such, it is liable to be set aside.

11. For the reasons stated above, the revision is allowed and the order passed by the Court below in Crl. M.P. No. 67 of 1998 is set aside and Crl. M.P. No. 67 of 1998 is dismissed. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the case against all the accused within a period of four months in accordance with law.