S.K.Jain, Office Supervisor, Madura Coats Ltd. vs Raj Kumar

Jai Singh Sekhon, J.

The complainant has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for quashing the orders dated 2111987 and 2.3.1989 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana and Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana respectively.

The brief resume of facts is that Shri S.K. Jain, Office Supervisor, Madhura Coats Ltd., Rakh Bagh, Civil Lines, Ludhiana filed a complaint for offence under Section 500 IPC, alleging that accused Raj Kumar joined as driver in the above referred company in the year 1981. The accused used to overawe the officers of the Company. The complainant received threatening letters to the effect that he and his family shall be annihilated and the office building shall be destroyed if ransom money was not paid. Apprehending danger to his life, the complainant moved the local police for necessary action. The accused is alleged to have given an application dated 1371985 to the Police against the management of the Company alleging that the management had invented a new method about receiving threatening letters from the terrorists in order to curb the activities of the trade union and the management had harassed Kashmir Singh, a member of the union, by getting him detained at the Police Station. It was further alleged in the complaint by the accused that the management being a rich management can corrupt the local police to any extent.

The trial Court vide its order dated 171986 after recording evidence of the complainant as well as Ram Singh (PW 2), Gurmel Singh (PW 3), Gurmit Singh (PW 4) and Mohinder Singh (PW 5), summoned the accused for facing trial under Section 500 IPC and discharged the accused by holding that no primafacie case is made out for framing the charge for offence under Section 500 IPC. The complainant then preferred a revision petition which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide impugned order dated 231989 on the technical ground that the complainant was not an aggrieved person as defined in Section 199(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the trial Court was not competent to take the cognizance of the offence under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the complainant being Office Supervisor of the Branch office of the Company located at Ludhiana was an aggrieved person being a member of the management and thus competent to file a complaint for offence under Section 500 IPC. Thus he maintains that the impugned order of the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge should be set aside and the case be remanded for redecision of the revision petition by the Sessions Judge on merits. The accusedrespondent appeared in person and controverted the above version contending that Senior Sales Manager is the Incharge of the Branch Office of the Company at Ludhiana and thus the complainant cannot be said to be a member of the management of the company. The accused had also referred to the statement of the complainant recorded by the trial Court in this regard.

In view of the factum that the complainant is only office supervisor of the branch office of the Company and that the incharge of this office is Senior Sales Manager, it cannot be said that the complainant is a member of the management of the company. On the other hand, it appears that the complaint was filed by the complainant on well founded or ill founded suspicion and that the accused was instrumental in sending threatening letters for annihilating his family or to pay the ransom money. Thus the complainant does not fall under the expression aggrieved person as defined in Section 199(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973. A decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Devki Nandan v. K. Narinder, 1963(1) Cr. LJ 706 is of no help to the complainant in this case as in that case the expression aggrieved person was held to be a person who may not be a direct target of the attack but facts contained therein leave no doubt that imputation pertains to the complainant. In the case in hand, The complainant cannot be said to be a member of the management of the company as he has no independent control over its funds in context to allegations in the complaint that the management being a rich management can corrupt the police for getting undue favour.

The matter does not rest here as the bare perusal of the allegations in the complaint leave no doubt that this did not fall under the nature of defamation as defined in Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code due to lack of requisite mens rea. The relevant provisions of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code are reproduced below :

"499. Defamation. Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person.

Explanation 1. It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives.

Explanation 2. It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such.

Explanation 3. An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation.

Explanation 4. No imputation is said to harm a person''s reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or cause it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful."

By no stretch of imagination it can be said that from the above referred allegations in the complaint it can be inferred that the accusedrespondent intended to malign or harm the reputation of the company as he has simply alleged that the management being a rich management can corrupt the local police to any extent of getting Kashmir Singh, one of the members of the union, illegally detained at the police station at its behest. Even if the allegations are taken to be true it will at the most amount to giving wrong information to the police or a public servant and may attract the provisions of Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code. The mere fact that the officers of the branch office of the company were summoned to the police station or the police visited the office premises would not amount to defamation as defined under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code.

For the foregoing reasons, no case is made out for interference with the impugned order of the trial Court or of the revisional Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This petition is, therefore, dismissed.