The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Manikandan B. & Anr vs Pavan Gaur consisting of Justice Asha Menon while quashing proceedings in a complaint case observed that in a case of defamation, unless and until there was an intention to cause harm and the contents of the letter had been made without a valid cause, no offence, even prima facie, would be made out against the petitioners. It was also observed that Petitioner no. 2, (a company) being a juristic person, cannot have mens rea.
Facts
The petitioners were summoned to face trial for having committed the alleged offences u/s 499/500 IPC. The respondent filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court alleging that by means of a letter, petitioner No.2 through petitioner No.1 (the Managing Director) had defamed the respondent. It was submitted that the respondent being an employee of petitioner No.2, had not made fair disclosures to petitioner No.2 before employment and had also thereafter engaged in activities detrimental to the interests of the company (petitioner No.2). After the employment agreement between petitioner No.2 and the respondent had come to an end, various extortionate demands had been made by the respondent upon petitioner No.2, which petitioner No.2 rejected. Thereafter the respondent resigned from petitioner No.2/Company raising baseless allegations against petitioner No.2/Company. The resignation was duly accepted. Because of certain actions of the respondent along with his mother, petitioner No.2 lodged a criminal complaint under various sections of the IPC. Another criminal complaint was registered against the respondent and some others, including the landlord of the premises from where petitioner No.2 was functioning. The allegations were that the respondent, his mother, and the landlord had illegally ousted petitioner No.2 and taken over the business of petitioner No.2 run from those premises. Another FIR was registered by the Police Station under Sections 406 and 420 IPC against the respondent. Yet another criminal complaint was lodged on behalf of petitioner No.2 at the same Police Station against the respondent and some others. The registration of the FIR was sought to be quashed by the respondent by filing a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition before the Allahabad High Court which refused to quash the same.
Contentions Made
Appellant: In the impugned order, the learned MM, by summoning the petitioners, reproduced the letter highlighting the contents that prevailed upon the learned MM to consider the letter as being per se defamatory. Though two witnesses were examined by the respondent, not a word was mentioned of the actual registration of the FIR which the Allahabad High Court had refused to quash. There was no intent to cause any harm, which was an essential and necessary ingredient of defamation. Reliance was placed on various judgments in support of the contentions that the petitioner No.2 being a juristic person could possess no mens rea and that when proceedings had been initiated on accounts of vengeance or after the suppression of material facts, the proceedings ought to be quashed.
Respondent: All the arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners were on merits and were of no relevance while considering a petition u/s 482 CrPC. Moreover, no new material could be investigated by the court and the orders relied upon by the petitioners had to be ignored. There were allegations in the letter which were intended to impact the reputation of the respondent. The company was impleaded as a necessary party as its letterhead had been used. It was prayed that the petition is dismissed.
Observations of the Court
The Bench observed that material had been produced by the petitioners that support their case and which were not brought before the learned Trial Court at the time the summoning order was issued.
Relying on certain judgments of the Supreme Court, it was observed that the objections raised by the learned counsel for the respondent that the pleas of the petitioners being their defence ought not to be not considered at this stage, cannot be acceded to. It was further held that the learned Trial Court had fallen into error in summoning the petitioner No.2 for the commission of the offences under Section 499 read with Section 500 as a juristic person cannot have the required mens rea. Merely because the same is on the letterhead of the petitioner No.2 would not make the petitioner No.2 liable in the absence of any mens rea that can be ascribed to it.
Certain incidents and litigations had commenced between the parties. Criminal complaints had been already registered in respect of the premises and the complainant/respondent had initiated proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). Civil suits and writ petitions were also filed. In the background of the disputes between the parties, the attempt to protect business interests cannot be per se defamatory.
Judgment
What weighed most with this Court was the fact that the respondent had suppressed material information from the learned Trial Court. The material produced by the petitioners was not refuted by the respondent as they relate to proceedings before the court. In the circumstances, the continuation of the complaint case is unwarranted being an abuse of the process of the court. Accordingly, the judicial conscience of this Court was persuaded to quash these criminal proceedings in exercise of the powers vested u/s 482 CrPC. The proceedings in the complaint case stood quashed.
Case Name: Manikandan B. & Anr vs Pavan Gaur
Citation: CRL.M.C. 2220/2020, CRL.M.A.15801/2020 (for stay)
Decided on: 13th April 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
