C. Kishanlal vs Dineshchand Surana Managing Director, Surana Industries Limited

C.S. Karnan, J.—This petition has been filed by the petitioner to call for the records in C.C. No. 8649 of 2007 on the file of the VII

Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai-600 001 and quash the same.

The respondent/complainant has filed C.C. No. 8649 of 2007 against the petitioner/accused for an alleged offence u/s 500 IPC. The ingredients

of the complaint is as follows:

The complainant is a public limited company, and it was originally incorporated as ""Surana Metals and Steels India Ltd. It was conducting business

of manufacturing and trading of all varieties of steel, for construction and infrastructure activities. The name of the complainant company was

changed as ""Surana Industries Ltd"" on 05.02.2002. The company in order to expand its business intended to set up an Integrated Steel Complex

at Raichur, State of Karnataka. The Government of Karnataka had approved its proposal and allotted the required land to start industry.

The complainant further alleged that the accused while so had lodged a false complaint, with the Commissioner of Police, Chennai, against

Dineshchand Surana, the Managing Director of the complainant, linking him with another company M/s. Surana Corporation Ltd. He had levelled

charges of cheating, Criminal intimidation etc., against him. The latter is neither a Director of Surana Corporation Ltd, nor is he involved in the

administration of Surana Corporation Ltd, in any way. The complainant further alleges that the complainant company proposed to go for a public

issue for nearly 300 Crores to finance the proposed Integrated Steel Project at Raichur. The impugned communication and the complaint to the

police stated supra had adversely affected the image of the company. The accused had sent a communication dated 31.03.2006, containing false

and libellous allegations against the complainant''s company, to the Registrar of Companies, Bangalore and the copies were marked to 12 persons,

including the Governor of Karnataka, Industrial Secretary of Karnataka Government, Karnataka Industrial Development Board, Bangalore.

The averment in the communication of the petitioner dated 31.03.2006 that the ""integrity and genuineness"" of the affairs and activities of the

company are under judicial scanner is not true. It is admitted that an First Information Report is registered against Dineshchand Surana and eight

others in their personal capacity and not as Directors of any company much less the complainant company. Neither Surana Corporation Ltd, nor

Surana Industries Ltd, is figuring as an accused in the First Information Report stated above. Further, the complainant states that a First

Information Report is registered by the investigating agency and no final report has been filed. The complaint is forwarded only with a view to

prejudice the authorities and tarnish the image of the complainant.

The complainant further states that as the allegations were per se defamatory, and the same had harmed his reputation, the accused had

committed an offence punishable u/s 500 IPC.

The complainant had issued a notice on 06.05.2006 to the accused demanding unconditional apology and to pay a sum of Rs. 10,00,00,000/-

(Rupees ten crores only) within a week from the date of receipt of notice, failing which the complainant had stated that he would launch

appropriate proceedings to vindicate its honour. The accused had sent a reply dated 16.05.2006 through his counsel, with false allegations which

are defamatory. Hence, the complainant has lodged this complaint before the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai and the same

has been taken on file as C.C. No. 8649 of 2007 u/s 200 Cr.P.C for an offence punishable u/s 500 IPC, by the learned Magistrate. In support of

the complainant''s case, he has mentioned five witnesses and enclosed three documents.

Challenging the complaint, the petitioner has filed the above Criminal Original Petition to quash the case of the respondent herein. The

respondent has alleged that the petitioner has sent a communication on 31.03.2006 containing false and libellous allegations against the

complainant''s company, to the Registrar of Companies, Bangalore and that the copies were marked to 12 persons, including the Governor of

Karnataka, Industrial Secretary of Karnataka Government, Karnataka Industrial Development Board, Bangalore. The petitioner has categorically

admitted the business activities of the respondent. The petitioner submitted that the said Dharmendra Bafna is the close relative of the respondent

and sub-agent of the Surana Corporation Limited. Through him, the petitioner took part in the said business. In the said business, the petitioner has

invested a sum of Rs. 4.65 crores, through the sub agent of the Surana Corporation Ltd.

On a tip off, the petitioner closed his account with the sub agent of the Surana Corporation Ltd., on 02.12.2005 and the sub-agent had duly

signed in the diary that the petitioner has 4.95 crores (4.65 crores capital and 30 lakhs profit) account balance and asked the petitioner to meet the

directors of the respondent company on 10.12.2005 to collect the money. When the petitioner went to Surana Corporation Ltd, the sub-agent of

Surana Corporation Ltd., Mr. Goutham raj Surana, the Chairman of both companies ,Vijayraj Surana, one of the Director of Surana Corporation

Ltd, along with the respondent and their men put the petitioner inside the office and claimed Rs. 2 crores from him, being loss to the company. The

same was clarified by the petitioner. Immediately, all the respondents jointly threatened him. The petitioner lodged a complaint with the City

Commissioner of Police on 30.12.2005. Subsequently, case was registered in Crime No. 60 of 2006 on an alleged offence under Sections 406,

409, 420 and 506(ii) r/w. 120(b) IPC. Immediately, the respondent and others moved bail before this Hon''ble Court.

The petitioner has alleged that this act of the respondent clearly shows they have conspired to commit fraud. The petitioner has alleged that the

respondent has filed this case with ulterior motive because the petitioner has filed a criminal case with the police against the respondent. Further,

the petitioner pointed out that the dispute which arose between the respondent company directors and himself is only on the basis of business

transactions. So, to invoke Section 500 IPC is not maintainable. Further, the petitioner pointed out that regarding this dispute a civil suit in C.S.

No. 200 of 2006 is pending in this Court. The petitioner further contended that the respondent has not pointed out any imputations which lowered

down the reputation of the respondent. In the said representation to the various authorities by the petitioner, a disclosure about what had been the

dispute and the facts of the case was only said and no defamatory statements were made against the respondent. Further, the petitioner has alleged

that he has taken legal steps to safeguard his right and such an act cannot be termed as defamation.

Considering the contentions of the complainant and the petitioner and after hearing the arguments of the learned Counsels for the respective

parties, and perusal of the documents presented by both sides, the Court is of the view that the dispute arose on the basis of the business

transactions between the petitioner and the respondent. The petitioner''s representation dated 31.03.2006, sent to various government officials and

elected representatives of the people, has narrated the dispute between the parties. Further, the Criminal and Civil Case between the parties on the

same cause of action are also pending before the Hon''ble High Court and City Civil Court. As such the C.C. No. 8649 of 2007 on the file of the

VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai-600 001 cannot be quashed and it has to be tried before the learned Magistrate. Therefore,

this Court directs the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai-600 001, to dispose the case, as expeditiously as possible,

preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

With the above observation, the Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.