Mr. Debi Goenka vs Mr. B.D. Gard

N. Dhinakar, J.—The petitioner is A.8 in C.C. No. 300 of 2001 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Hosur, and the

proceedings against the petitioner and seven others came to be initiated by way of a private complaint at the instance of the respondent for an

offence punishable u/s 500 IPC. The complaint was initially filed before learned Judicial I Class Magistrate, Neelamangala, and thereafter, a

petition for transfer was filed by one of the accused before the Supreme Court and on the orders of the Supreme Court, the case was transferred

to Judicial Magistrate No. II, Hosur and re-numbered as C.C. No. 300 of 2001.

The allegation in the complaint is that accused No. 1 is a member and spokesperson for ""All Goa Citizen Committee for Social Justice and

Action"" and accused No. 2 to 9 are supposed to be his members (The words 2 to 9 may probably be a typographical error). It is alleged in the

complaint that ""All Goa Citizen Committee for Social Justice and Action"" is bringing out ""Goa Scene"", a news letter, with its office at No. 22,

Municipal Building, Dr. Pissurkar Road, Panaji, Goa and the said news letter has been published by the first accused on behalf of ""All Goa Citizen

Committee for Social Justice and Action"". The further allegation in the complaint is that ""Goa Scene"" have published letters dated 30.10.1999 and

19.12.1999 and also publishing articles about Meta Stripes Limited aimed at discrediting and bringing down the image of Meta Stripes Limited in

the eye of the general public. The further allegation in the complaint is that, various articles published in the news letter were aimed at highlighting

certain unwarranted and unfounded accusations and in order to clear the misgivings created by the articles published in the news letter from the

mind of the general public, the complainant addressed a detailed letter to the accused, appraising the object with which Meta Stripes Limited was

started in Goa and the success it has achieved in a short period. The complainant, after giving history as to how Meta Stripes Limited came to be

started, went on to state that the accused, by letter dated 28.12.1999, addressed to the then Minister of State for Social Justice, Government of

India and to a Judge of the Karnataka High Court, Bangalore, ridiculed the designation of the complainant and also compared the complainant to a

gas bag. The further allegation in the complaint is that, in June 1999, the accused started creating trouble in the name of pollution and also in the

general statement made in the letter addressed by the accused, words like ""fraud"", unlawful misdeeds"" and ""just like someone who adopted an

abandoned whore"" have been used and also made allegations that the complainant is a person indulging in nefarious activities and that he is

suffering from mental crisis. It is further alleged that in the letter dated 27th December 1999 addressed to Dr. S.R.Jindal, derogatory comments

have been made in bad taste and it has lowered the image and status of K.R.Raghunath, who is the Senior Executive of the company and that

accused No. 1 has been publishing derogatory articles with an ulterior motive to blackmail the Jindal Aluminium Company. It is also stated that the

accused, with a common intention, prepared and published a letter by addressing copies to persons other than the complainant himself and the

defamatory utterances and expressions which have been deliberately included in the letter cannot be said to have been used to justify or as to come

under any one of the exceptions provided u/s 499 of Indian Penal Code.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, who is A.8, submits that there is absolutely no allegation as against the petitioner and the only

statement made in the complaint is that the first accused is a member and spokesperson of the ""All Goa Citizen Committee for Social Justice and

Action"" and accused 2 to 9 are supposed to be his membeRs. The learned counsel submits that there is no allegation that the petitioner, who is

arrayed as A.8, was responsible for the alleged defamatory statements made in the articles or in the letters addressed to various persons.

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that in view of the word ""common intention"" used in the complaint, it is to be

presumed that the said letter and other articles were sent by A.1 and that A.8 shared the common intention of A.1 in making such derogatory

remarks.

I have considered the rival contentions and perused the entire materials and even at the outset, I have to state that the proceedings against the

petitioner are to be quashed. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, nowhere the complainant has made any allegation against the

petitioner in the complaint and even in paragraph-3, he has only stated that he is supposed to be a member of the Society. He did not even have a

definite case that the petitioner is the member of the said Society and therefore, has used the word ""supposed to be a member"". The word

common intention"" used in the complaint does not in any way indicate that the first accused sent those letters or published those articles in

furtherance of the common intention of this petitioner and merely by using the word ""common intention"" in the complaint, the petitioner cannot be

made to face a prosecution, especially when there are no allegations that the said articles or letters were either published or sent to various persons

at the instance of the petitioner. The complainant did not even say that the letters were sent not only at the instance of the petitioner; but also were

sent with his knowledge. In the absence of any such allegation in the complaint, allowing the proceedings against the petitioner, in my view, will only

lead to abuse of process of Court and in that view of the matter, I quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 300 of 2001 pending on the file of the

Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Hosur, against this petitioner alone. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible.

The criminal original petition is, therefore, allowed. Consequently, connected Crl.M.Ps. are closed.