Bombay High Court
Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri & Sons ... vs Smt. Neeta Amrut Chawdagor, Prop. ... on 8 December, 2017
Bench: R.P. Mohite-Dere
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
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
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
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.
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
