Allowed

Govind Arjundas Artani v. Bhaskar Kashiram Chaudhari

Bombay HC20 Nov 2013APPLN/2513/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal application, the applicant challenged the order issuing his process for defamation. The Court held that the act of prosecuting the respondent in a cheque bounce case did not per se constitute defamation under Section 499 IPC. Finding no sufficient grounds for the defamation charge, the Court quashed the order issuing process and dismissed the complaint.

What did the court decide?

The order issuing process as passed by the Magistrate is quashed and the complaint shall stand dismissed.

Govind Arjundas Artani Vs Bhaskar Kashiram Chaudhari — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

APPLICATION 2513.13.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2513 OF 2013

¶5

GOVIND ARJUNDAS ARTANI VERSUS

¶6

BHASKAR KASHIRAM CHAUDHARI

¶7

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. L.B. Palod APP for Respondent 2 : Mr.V.P.Kadam Mr.D.B. Thoke advocate For Respondent 1

¶8

CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. Dated: November 20, 2013

¶9

ORAL ORDER :-

¶10

Heard. By consent, admitted and taken up for final

¶11

hearing forthwith.

¶12

The applicant is the accused in SCC No.350/2012 registered in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yawal District Jalgaon. The case arises on a complaint filed by the respondent herein. After examining the respondent on oath, the learned Magistrate found that there were sufficient grounds for

¶13

proceeding against the applicant with respect to the offence punishable under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code and issued process accordingly. The applicant is aggrieved by the

¶14

APPLICATION 2513.13.odt

¶15

¶16

order issuing process and his prosecution with respect to the

¶17

offence punishable under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code

¶18

and has approached this Court invoking its inherent powers praying that the order issuing process as well as the proceedings of the said case be quashed.

¶19

I have gone through the application and the annxures

¶20

thereto.

¶21

A perusal of the complaint filed by the respondent

¶22

shows that the allegation that the respondent was defamed by the applicant, is based on the following :-

¶23

That, the applicant had filed a criminal
complaint bearing case No.300/2003 with
respect to the offence punishable under
section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act. That, in the said case, the
respondent was prosecuted as one of the
accused on the basis that he was a
Director of the company which was the main
accused in the said case. That, actually
the respondent was only a nominal director
and was not in-charge of the business of
the said company. That, he had not signed
the cheque in question, but inspite of
there being no involvement of the
respondent,theapplicanthad

¶24

¶25

APPLICATION 2513.13.odt

¶26

unnecessarily made him an accused in the
said case. That, ultimately, the
respondentwasacquittedbythe
Magistrate. However, the case proceeded
for about seven years which caused
tremendous hardship to the respondent.
That, the respondent was made to attend on
all dates of the case and therefore,
sufferedphysically,mentallyand
financially. That, because of the case
the reputation of the respondent was
affected and the respondent was lowered in
the esteem of the society. That, the
applicant had settled with some of the
other accused in the said case, but had
maliciously prosecuted the respondent with
intention of defaming him.

¶27

It is clear from the averments made in the complaint

¶28

and the order passed by the learned Magistrate that defamation

¶29

is said to have been committed by the act of prosecuting the

¶30

respondent . There is no other allegation i.e. there is no claim

¶31

that the respondent was defamed by the applicant in any other manner.

¶32

The offence of defamation has been defined in Section

¶33

499 of the IPC. It involves publication of a false statement about a

¶34

APPLICATION 2513.13.odt

¶35

¶36

man to harm his reputation or discredit him without any lawful excuse therefor. It requires making of an imputation by words –

¶37

spoken or intended to be read, – or by making signs or visible representation, and publishing such imputation with the requisite intention, belief or knowledge, as mentioned in Section 499 of the IPC. Whether the offence of defamation can be committed without any words – spoken or written – or without any signs or visible representation, does not appear to be entirely free from doubt. However, even if a wider interpretation is given to the provisions of

¶38

Section 499 of the IPC, and it is held that defamation can be committed by acts which do not involve any spoken or written words, or signs, or visible representations, still, in the present case, it is impossible to hold that a prima facie case had been made out against the applicant.

¶39

Admittedly, the respondent was a Director of the company which was prosecuted vide the criminal case No. 300/2003. It was the defence of the respondent that he was not liable for the acts of the accused company. Admittedly, process

¶40

was issued by the learned Magistrate against the respondent

¶41

APPLICATION 2513.13.odt

¶42

¶43

which indicates satisfaction of the Magistrate about existence of a

¶44

prima facie case against the respondent. The learned counsel for

¶45

the respondent informs me that the respondent did not challenge the issue of process against him and faced the trial.

¶46

It is also significant that there is no allegation that the respondent has committed any offence of giving false evidence, or of fabricating false evidence. No prayer was made before the Magistrate who dealt with the case wherein the respondent was prosecuted, that action should be taken against the applicant for giving or fabricating false evidence.

¶47

Thus, it is only by the act of prosecuting the respondent, that the defamation is alleged to have been committed by the applicant, and there is no allegation of the defamation having been committed in any other manner. It is not possible to hold that the act of prosecuting the respondent with respect to an

¶48

offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments

¶49

Act per se amounted to defamation of the respondent. If the respondent was maliciously prosecuted as claimed by him, it would be open for him to claim damages from the applicant by

¶50

APPLICATION 2513.13.odt

¶51

¶52

adopting appropriate civil proceedings.

¶53

The fact remains that there were no sufficient grounds

¶54

for proceeding against the applicant with respect to the offence punishable under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint did not make out any such case. Consequently, the

¶55

order issuing process is bad in law. The prosecution of the applicant, under the circumstances, cannot be permitted to be continued.

¶56

11. The application is allowed.

¶57

The order issuing process as passed by the Magistrate

¶58

is quashed. The complaint shall stand dismissed.

¶59

The application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶60

In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶61

sd/-

¶62

( ABHAY M. THIPSAY )

¶63

JUDGE.

¶64

aaa/-

Govind Arjundas Artani v. Bhaskar Kashiram Chaudhari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govind Arjundas Artani v. Bhaskar Kashiram Chaudhari

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

Pooja Mahesh Vaidya and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

M/S Videocon Narmada Electronics Ltd. Vs M/S Top Line Shoes Limited

Manjoor Ahemad Kureshi Fakir Mohammad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Ishrat Hussain S/O Mohammad Hussain Vs the State of Mah

Sanjay Bhagwan Chaudhari and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shaikh Mansoor Shaikh Maddu Vs Zaidabee Shaikh Maddu and Another