Dismissed

Shailesh Harishchandra Fulsunge and Anr. v. Suchita Shailesh Fulsunge and Anr.

Bombay HC21 Mar 2013APL/861/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay criminal appellate jurisdiction dismissed a criminal appeal challenging a complaint for defamation and slander. The court held that filing an affidavit with a journalist to ascertain truth prima facie demonstrated an intention to defame and that no case for quashing was made out.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Application dismissed; complaint for defamation and slander allowed to proceed.

Shailesh Harishchandra Fulsunge and Anr. Vs Suchita Shailesh… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2013)

APL No.861_2011

jsn

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.861 OF 2011

¶6

-- Shailesh Harishchandra Fulsunge & Anr. Applicants V/s.

¶7

-- Smt. Suchita Shailesh Fulsunge & Anr. Respondents

¶8

Mr. Pratik Sangvi, Adv. i/b. Ruben Fernandes, Adv. for the Applicants. Smt. A.A. Mane, APP for the State.

¶9

CORAM : MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATE : 21th March, 2013.

¶10

P.C. :-

¶11

The applicants are the husband and sister-in-law of Respondent No.1 who has lodged criminal complaint under Section 504 and 500 r/w. 34 of the IPC against the applicants upon an affidavit admittedly executed by the applicants setting out the relationship between them and Respondent No.1. The affidavit has not been made in any legal proceeding. The affidavit has been simplicitor signed relating to acts of Respondent No.1 and admittedly handed over to a journalist. Upon showing certain responsibility the journalist approached Respondent No.1 to ascertain the truthfulness of the facts stated in the affidavits. That is how the Respondent No.1 claims to have been defamed. The affidavit shows specified names of Respondent and her family members along with their relationship on the last page. Applicant claims that the affidavit, more specially the specific reference on the last page thereof, given to a journalist would constitute defamation.

¶12

Respondent No.1 in her complaint has also mentioned

APL No.861_2011

jsn

about certain oral threats of the applicants. Consequently slander in paragraph Nos.4 and 6 of the complaint is prima facie made out. 3. There have been criminal as well as civil litigations between the parties in which the applicants would have been entitled to state on oath whatever they desired which could have been to the appropriate authority and which could have been considered judicially.

¶17

For the fact of making an affidavit and giving it to none other than a journalist, the intention of the appellant would prima facie be seen. Hence a case for quashing complaint is not made out. 5. Criminal Application is dismissed.

¶18

( ROSHAN DALVI, J.)

Shailesh Harishchandra Fulsunge and Anr. v. Suchita Shailesh Fulsunge and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shailesh Harishchandra Fulsunge and Anr. v. Suchita Shailesh Fulsunge 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

Sparebanken Sogn Og Fjordane Vs M.v.Bos Angler and 5 Others

Kamala Chaganlal Sanghvi Vs Chaganlal Bhaichand Sanghvi

Harish Vithat Kulkarni and Anr. Vs Pradeep Mahadeo Sabnis

P. v. Harindranath Vs Sujata Harindranath and Anr.

Mrudula Kishore and Ors. Vs Payal Malhotra and Ors.

Seema Lanke @ Seema Kuktaji Nitnaware and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.