A.P. Velayudhan vs Marattukulam M.K

H.P. Sandesh, J

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.50533/2017 on the file of XXIX

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC.

The factual matrix of the case is that the suit in O.S.No.29541/2012 is filed against the respondent herein. In para No.10 of the plaint, an allegation

is made against this petitioner that he being the President, has misused his office and authority in the Bangalore Club to settle personal scores and has

shown scant respect for the Rules and Bye-Laws of the Bangalore Club and above all else, the Laws of the Land. He has restored to suspension of

Members, victimization of applicants for membership and guests in the Club and indulged in frivolous litigation causing huge financial losses to the

Club. He has neglected and rendered non-est resolutions and decisions made by the General Body and former General Committees to subserve his

devious ends causing embarrassment to the Club and its members and heavy financial losses thereby. He has willfully failed to take preventive action

against delinquents in the Club leading to feelings and sentiments of discontent amongst its members. He has also been unable to maintain law and

order in the Club and to protect its membership from trespassers and rapists on the prowl. He has indulged in sexual harassment and can truly be

characterized a male chauvinist leading to a complaint being lodged before the Karnataka State Women’s Commission against him. He has also

abused the process of law and has left the membership of the Club in disarray, discontent and desperate. Hence, taking note of the averment made in

para No.10 of the plaint, the respondent herein had filed the complaint in PCR No.51234/2014 reiterating the averments made in para No.10 of the

plaint contending that the said statement made in the plaint disreputes him. He also referred to the resolution passed on 01.07.2012.

In support of the complaint, the respondent has been examined before the Trial Court and his sworn statement was recorded on 03.10.2016. The

Trial Court, after considering the complaint averments and also sworn statement, issued the process against this petitioner and also the other

petitioners by passing the reasoned order. Hence, the present petition is filed by the petitioner, who has been arraigned as accused No.1 challenging

the said order.

The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court is that the averments made in the plaint do not constitute an offence

and also the ingredients of Section 499 of IPC. The learned Magistrate has committed an error in taking the cognizance for the offence punishable

under Section 500 of IPC. Learned counsel also would vehemently contend that the Explanation 4 of Section 499 of IPC is very clear that the same

would not tarnish the image of the respondent in the estimation of the others and reputation was not lowered, and the same would comes within the

purview of Explanation 4 of Section 499 of IPC. Hence, learned counsel would vehemently contend that there cannot be any criminal prosecution

against this petitioner and if any proceedings is continued, it amounts to an abuse of process.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would vehemently contend that the allegation made in para No.10 of the plaint in the

original suit in O.S.No.29541/2012 constitute an offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC. Apart from that even they have passed the resolution

against the respondent herein, who was the President of the Bengaluru Club disreputing his image. Learned counsel also would vehemently contend

that the respondent was working as a President and the allegation against him is that he has not taken any steps to protect the interest of the lady

member and also he has not provided any security to the members of the Club. Learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court para No.10,

wherein it is alleged against this petitioner that he indulged in sexual harassment.

Learned counsel in support of his arguments, he relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Sushma Rani v. H.N.Nagaraja Rao reported

in 2020 SCC Online KAR.1913 and brought to the notice of this Court para Nos.28 to 32 which deals with regard to the publication of defamatory

statement. In para No.32, this Court held that in the form of statement of objections, in the matrimonial case, she has also revealed the contents of the

same to the relatives and a friend of the complainant, which clearly establishes that there was publication as required under Section 499 of IPC of the

alleged defamatory statement by the accused. Hence, prayed this court to dismiss the petition.

Learned counsel for the respondent brought to the notice of this Court the sworn statement of the complainant/respondent, wherein he also

reiterated the averments of the complaint and learned Magistrate also passed a reasoned order, particularly, with regard to disreputing the image of

the petitioner by lowering the moral character of the respondent herein. Learned counsel also would submit that other accused persons have also

approached this Court in Crl.P.No.2902/2017 and the said petition is similarly placed and this Court vide detailed order dated 24.03.2020 rejected the

petition. There is no any changed circumstances or any factors to deviate from the order passed by this Court.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondent and so also on perusal of the material available on

record, this Court has to look into the averments made in para No.10 of the plaint. This Court had already mentioned the averments made in para

No.10 of the plaint, particularly, a reference is made that the respondent has indulged in sexual harassment and can truly be characterized a male

chauvinist leading to a complaint being lodged before the Karnataka State Women’s Commission against him and other allegations are also made

against the respondent.

The very contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said allegations would come within the purview of Explanation 4 of Section 499

of IPC, as per which in the estimation of others, the reputation of the respondent has not been lowered. When the specific allegation is made in the

complaint against this petitioner and also no doubt, the said suit was withdrawn and apart from that the resolution was also passed against the

respondent and when the complainant/respondent also examined before the Trial Court and in his sworn statement, he reiterated the averments made

in para No.10 of the plaint and he has also given the evidence that due to the act of the petitioner herein and other accused persons, it has resulted in

disreputing the image in the general public and also the same has lowered the respect of the respondent, who served as a President of the Club,.

Having taken note of the material available on record, particularly, para No.10 of the plaint and also the allegations made in the complaint and so

also the sworn statement, this Court had dealt with the matter in detail in Crl.P.No.2902/2017. The petitioner herein is also similarly placed in view of

the specific allegations made in the plaint. Hence, there is a force in the contention of the respondent’s counsel that this Court cannot deviate from

the decision which had already been rendered by this Court. Having perused the material available on record, the very contention of the learned

counsel for the petitioner that the same would come within the purview of Explanation 4 of Section 499 of IPC, cannot be accepted and the matter

requires trial so as to ascertain whether with an intention to disrepute the respondent, the petitioner herein had made such statement or not. The very

intention of the petitioner herein also to be examined by the Trial Court by conducting a full fledged trial as to whether it constitutes an offence under

Section 500 of IPC.

In view of the discussion made above, I proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

(i) The petition is hereby rejected.

(ii) The Trial Court is directed to dispose off the matter as expeditiously as possible.

In view of rejection of the main petition, I.A., if any does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.