Allowed

Tahera Khatoon Abdul Aziz Shaikh and Ors. v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Bombay HC25 Apr 2012APPLN/704/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal application challenging the issuance of process in a defamation case. The bench held that objections raised by third parties against a property sale notice do not constitute defamation, even if false, and consequently quashed the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; SCC No. 2031 of 2011 and all orders passed therein are quashed and set aside.

Tahera Khatoon Abdul Aziz Shaikh and Ors. Vs the State… — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 Cri Apln 704/12

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 704 OF 2012

¶4

1 Tahera Khatoon w/o Abdul Aziz Shaikh Shaikh, Aged Applicants 62 yrs, Occ. Household, R/o Arshada Garden Malak Cottage, Opposite Arshad Garden, Near Khushi Hospital, Station Road, Aurangabad

¶5

2 Sabiya w/o Iqbal Shaikh, Aged 46 yrs, Occ. Household, R/o House No.8-17-207, Wahed Colony, Aurangabad

¶6

3 Zubeda Khatoon w/o Mohd Ibrahim, Aged Major, Occ. Household, R/o Opposite House of Advocate Akbar Patel, Juna Bazaar, Aurangabad

¶7

4 Wasimkhan s/o Ibrahim Khan, Aged 50 yrs, Occ. Business, R/o Fancy Bangle Stores, Pandariba, Aurangabad

¶8

5 Irshad Khan s/o IbrahimKhan, Aged 46 yrs, Occ. Business, R/o. As above

¶9

6 Parvin Khatoon w/o Ibrahim Khan, Aged 52 yrs, Occ. Household, R/o Opposite house of Advocate Akbar Patel, Juna Bazaar, Aurangabad

¶10

V E R S U S

¶11

1 The State of Maharashtra Respondents

¶12

2 Harun Khan s/o Mohd Khuda Baksh Khan, Aged 70 yrs, Occ. Business, R/o Silk Mill Compound, Paithan Road, Aurangabad

¶13

Shri A.Z. Zaidi, Advocate, holding for
Shri R.J. Godbole, Advocate for the applicants
Shri S.B. Pulkundwar, APP for respondent No.1/State
Shri J.H. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent No.2

¶14

CORAM : A.V.NIRGUDE, J. DATE : 25^th April, 2012

¶15

ORAL ORDER :

¶16

1.This application moved under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
challenges the propriety of the complaint, which is

¶17

2 Cri Apln 704/12

¶18

registered as SCC No. 2031 of 2011 in the Court of 10th
Joint Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad and
the order of issuance of process passed by the learned
Magistrate.

¶19

2.I perused the complaint, on the basis of which, case
is registered and the learned Magistrate passed the
impugned order of issuance of process. On the face of
it, I found the complaint does not make out any offence.

¶20

3.Respondent No.2 is the complainant. He asserted
that he is owner of certain immovable property in
Aurangabad city. He agreed to sell this property to one
Mr. Pradhan. In order to get clarification of title, Mr.
Pradhan published a notice in newspapers inviting
objections in respect of proposed transaction. The
applicants submitted their objections saying that they
too are owners of the property which was proposed to be
sold. They also made allegation that the respondent No.2
has falsely represented that he is exclusive owner of the
property. They sent their objections through their
Advocate to Mr. Pradhan. Having gone through their
objections, respondent No.2 apparently got provoked to
file this complaint by saying that the contents of the
objections caused his defamation. He also said that due
to such defamation, he suffered mental agony and torture.
The learned Magistrate strangely accepted his contention
and held prima facie that contents of the complaint made

¶21

3 Cri Apln 704/12

¶22

out a case for issuance of process.

¶23

I am afraid, respondent No.2 ought not to have filed
complaint on these allegations because the complaint even
if is true, would not constitute commission of offence of
defamation. The applicants/accused had every right to
raise objections to the proposed transaction, because
they were responding to a published notice in the
newspapers. I am assuming for the sake of arguments that
their objections are false and baseless and that their
objections made wild-claims and wrongly denied the title
of respondent No.2, yet such allegations by no stretch of
imagination would defame respondent No.2. The complaint
thus can not survived. The application is allowed.
S.C.C.No.2031 of 2011 filed by respondent No.
2/complainant and all orders passed in said proceedings
stand quashed and set aside.

¶24

SRM/25/4/12

¶25

****

Tahera Khatoon Abdul Aziz Shaikh and Ors. v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tahera Khatoon Abdul Aziz Shaikh and Ors. v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gajanan Subhashrao Suryawanshi Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Raju Mansaram Chavan Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Narendra Pralhad Jawale and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Kailash Gokulshet Kharote Vs Suresh Vishwanath Kumawat

Suresh Narsing Tour and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Bipin Bansilal Mahale and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.