0812WP63.17-Judgment 1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 63 OF 2017
PETITIONERS :- 1) Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri & Sons Pvt.Ltd.,
(Original accused) through its Director, Shri Hemant Zaveri S/o
Vrajlal (Vajubhai) Zaveri, Nirmal Lifestyle,
L.B.S. Marg, Mulund (W), Mumbai -
400080.
OR
At Poonam Chambers, Koradi Road,
Chhaoni, Nagpur - 440013.
2) Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri & Bros. Pvt. Ltd.,
through its Director Shri Hemant Zaveri S/o
Vrajlal (Vajubhai) Zaveri, Nirmal Lifestyle,
L.B.S. Marg, Mulund (W), Mumbai -
400080.
OR
At Poonam Chambers, Koradi Road,
Chhaoni, Nagpur - 440013.
3) Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri & Sons Pvt.Ltd.,
through its Director Shri Hemant Zaveri S/o
Vrajlal (Vajubhai) Zaveri, Nirmal Lifestyle,
L.B.S. Marg, Mulund (W), Mumbai -
400080.
OR
At Poonam Chambers, Koradi Road,
Chhaoni, Nagpur - 440013.
4) Shri Hemant Zaveri S/o Vrajlal (Vajubhai)
Zaveri, Director, Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri
& Sons Retail Pvt.Ltd. Nirmal Lifestyle, L.B.S.
Marg, Mulund (W), Mumbai - 400080.
OR
Flat No.2102 RNA Mirage, S.K.Ahir Marg,
Near Doordarshan Worli Colony, Worli,
Mumbai.
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2017 01:14:29 :::
0812WP63.17-Judgment 2/6
5) Shri Girish Srinivas Nayak, Director,
Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri & Sons Retail
Pvt. Ltd., 1303, Rustomjee Regency-II CHS,
B-Wing, Rustomjee Acres, Dahisar (West),
Mumbai - 400068.
6) Sagar Zaveri S/o Subhash Zaveri, Nirmal
Lifestyle, L.B.S. Marg, Mulund (W), Mumbai
- 400080.
7) Dinar Sadashiv Kochare, Authorized
signatory Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri & Sons
Pvt. Ltd., Nirmal Lifestyle, L.B.S. Marg,
Mulund (W), Mumbai - 400080.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENT :- Smt.Neeta Amrut Chawdagor, Proprietress
(Original Complainant) M/s. Preeti Jewellers, Aged about - Major,
R/o Vali Apartments, Chhaoni, Katol Road,
Nagpur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.M.M.Sudame, counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. A.A.Gupta, counsel for the respondent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.
DATED : 08.12.2017 O R A L J U D G M E N T Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. By this petition, the petitioners have sought quashing and setting aside of the impugned order dated 16/02/2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.6, Nagpur, by which ::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2017 01:14:29 ::: 0812WP63.17-Judgment 3/6 the learned Judge was pleased to issue process as against the petitioners for the alleged offences punishable under sections 499 and 500 of Indian Penal Code and consequently, have sought quashing of Criminal Complaint Case No.4362 of 2016.
3. Mr.M.M.Sudame, learned counsel for the petitioners assailed the impugned order dated 16/02/2016, by which process was issued as against the petitioners. He submitted, that the action of publication of the notice was done in good faith, so as to protect the public at large from entering into any business transaction with the respondent and her husband. He submitted, that the action of the petitioners is protected under exceptions 9 and 10 of section 499 of Indian Penal Code. He further submitted, that no mala fides can be attributed to the petitioners for publication of the said notice, which was published in good faith. According to the learned counsel, the representations made by the respondent-complainant to various persons, necessitated publication of the public notice, in order to protect the public at large.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent-complainant vehemently opposed the petition. He submitted, that no interference was warranted in the impugned order dated 16/02/2016 issuing ::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2017 01:14:29 ::: 0812WP63.17-Judgment 4/6 process as against the petitioners. He further submitted, that admittedly the respondent was not in the employment of the petitioners i.e. Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri and despite the same, the petitioners knowingly published the said public notice with the sole intention of maligning and defaming the respondent. He submitted, that the petitioners' case is not covered by any of the exceptions available in section 499 of Indian Penal Code and that in any case, this is a matter which will be decided by the Trial Court, after evidence is led.
5. Perused the papers. The respondent-complainant, a Proprietor of M/s. P.P.Jeweller, admittedly had some financial transactions with the petitioners-Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri. According to the respondent-complainant, she was in the business of gold, silver and diamond jewellery and was supplying the same to various clients, including the petitioners; that there were several monetary transactions between her and the petitioners and, that cheques were issued by the petitioners in her favour, which came to be dishonoured, pursuant to which, she sent legal notices to the petitioners. According to the respondent-complainant, instead of replying to the said legal notices, the petitioners published a "public notice" in leading newspapers of Nagpur City i.e. 'Nav-Bharat', 'Hitavada', 'Dainik Bhaskar' and 'Lokmat Times' wherein, a photograph of the respondent was published along ::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2017 01:14:29 ::: 0812WP63.17-Judgment 5/6 with her husband's photograph and it was stated as under:-
"This is to inform the public that the above mentioned persons are not the employees of TRIBHOVANDAS BHIMJI ZAVERI & SONS PVT.LTD. (Nagpur) any more and are representing the firm in falsely manner, neither are they authorized to transact any business or final deals on our behalf.
Please note our firm shall not be held liable for dealings conducted by them in our name."
Admittedly, the respondent-complainant was not in the employment of the petitioners and, that only her husband Amrut Chawdagor was in the employment of the petitioners. The fact, that the respondent-complainant was not in the employment of the petitioners is also not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, however, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the respondent-
complainant's photograph was published in good faith, to protect the public at large.
6. Whether or not the said photograph was published in good faith as is being alleged by the petitioners is a matter of trial, which will be considered by the Trial Court after evidence is led. Prima facie, in the facts of this case, the publication of the photograph of the respondent stating, that she was an employee of the petitioners was unwarranted, unjustified and defamatory, when admittedly, the respondent was not an employee of the petitioners. ::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2017 01:14:29 :::
0812WP63.17-Judgment 6/6
7. Considering the aforesaid, no interference is warranted in the impugned order dated 16/02/2016, passed by the learned Magistrate, by which the learned Magistrate was pleased to issue process as against the petitioners. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Rule stands discharged.
8. All the contentions of both the parties are kept open. The observations made in this petition are prima facie for considering the said petition and the learned Magistrate shall decide the case on its own merits, in accordance with law uninfluenced of the observations made in this order. Petition is disposed of.
JUDGE KHUNTE ::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2017 01:14:29 :::