Srichand Gobindram Nagpal vs M. Lakshmanan

K.N. Mudaliyar, J.—The allegation in the complaint filed by the complainant-respondent is set down in paragraph 14 of the complaint

petition. The relevant portion is extracted here below:

Thereupon, the complainant and others told the Policeman and accused I to wait as R.N. Bhattad was expected to come home for lunch any

moment. But the accused 1 created a row and insisted on the Policeman to affix the summons immediately saving ""My relatives accused 2 to 4

have told me that Lala Gopikrishna Gokuldoss Agencies are dishonest scoundrels who dishonestly make money by infringing other people''s trade

mark and have sent me with specific instructions to expose them and teach them a lesson. We Nagpals are determined to expose these dishonest

scoundrels and I shall fully expose them-and see how they infringe my relative''s. trade mark''. The complainant and others protested against the

use of such. vulgar and defamatory language by accused....

The relevant and material passage would indicate that relatives of A. 1 viz., A. 2 to A. 4 have told him that Lala Gopikrishna Gokuldoss

Agencies are dishonest scoundrels who dishonestly make money by infringing other people''s trade mark. I emphasise the word ''told''. In the light

of the definition in Sections 107 and 108, IPC, I am unable to see how the statement, attributed by A. 1 against A. 2 to A. 4 would constitute

abetment of the offence of defamation within the meaning of Section 109, IPC I do not find any of the constituent elements in proof of the offence

of abetment. The learned Counsel for the complainant-respondent cites before me the ruling in,: R.P. Kapur Vs. The State of Punjab, for the

purpose of contending that accused 2, 3 and 4, the petitioners herein, cannot approach this Court u/s 561-A when the present criminal

proceedings have reached the stage of Section 252 (1). In my view to permit the continuance of these criminal proceedings wherein A. 2 to A. 4

have been arraigned of such an unsubstantial and baseless averment in the complaint, would be a gross abuse of the process of the court. Their

Lordships of the Supreme Court have held in the case already adverted to that where the allegations in the first information report or the complaint,

even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; in such cases no question of

appreciating evidence arises; it is a matter merely of looking at the complaint or the first information report to decide whether the offence alleged is

disclosed or not. In my view, the accusation found in the complaint against A. 2 to A. 4 does not constitute only offence much less the offence of

abetment u/s 109 read with Section 500, IPC It is, in my view, iust and fA.I.R. that the inherent jurisdiction of this Court u/s 561-A is invoked for

quashing the criminal proceedings against A. 2 to A. 4 Accordingly I quash the present proceedings, against A. 2 to A. 4.