Bombay High Court
Anant Shankar Jagtap vs Prakash Nivrutti Tajanpure And Anr on 30 November, 2023
Author: A. S. Gadkari
Bench: A. S. Gadkari
2023:BHC-AS:35657-DB
Sonali Mane 201-WP-810-2010(J).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 810 OF 2010
Anant Shankar Jagtap
Age about 58 years, Occ: Advocate,
R/o. Chhatrapati Co-operative
Housing Society, Opp. To Durga Udyan,
Nashik Road, Tal & Dist. Nashik. .. Petitioner
(Org. Accused)
Vs.
1. Prakash Nivrutti Tajanpure,
Age: about 52 years, Occ: Advocate,
R/o: Tajanpure Mala, Chehdi Pumping
Station Road, Nashik Road, Tal. & Dist. Nashik.
2. The State,
Through the Police Inspector,
Nashik Road Police Station,
Nashik. .. Respondents
Mr. Harshad M. Inamdar, i/b Ashok S. Pandire a/w. Sahil A Pandire, for the
Petitioner.
Mr. H. J. Dedhia, APP, for the Respondent No.2-State.
CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND
SHYAM C. CHANDAK, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 27th OCTOBER, 2023.
PRONOUNCED ON : 30th NOVEMBER, 2023.
JUDGMENT:
[PER- SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.]
1) The present Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India and under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Digitally
signed by
MANE
MANE SONALI
SONALI DILIP
DILIP Date:
2023.11.30
23:13:09
+0530
Sonali Mane 201-WP-810-2010(J).doc
Procedure 1973, seeking to quash and set aside the impugned Order dated
09.02.2010, passed below Exhibit 1, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application
No.32 of 2010, whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, at
Nashik Road, District Nashik issued process against the Petitioner for the
alleged offences punishable under Sections 500 and 501 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860.
2) Heard Mr. Harshad M. Inamdar, learned Advocate for the
Petitioner and Mr. H. J. Dedhia, learned APP for Respondent No.2-State.
Perused the Petition and the documents annexed therewith.
3) In the present matter Rule was issued on 1st April, 2010 and the
ad-interim relief was granted.
Despite due service, none appears for Respondent No.1 nor
Affidavit-in-Reply is filed on her behalf. We have, therefore, with the able
assistance of learned APP perused the entire record.
4) Respondent No.1 has filed the said Cril. Misc. Appln. No.32 of
2010 (Exh.A), alleging therein that, the Petitioner and Respondent No.1
were acquainted with each other. Initially, their relations were cordial. But
due to happening of certain incidents, more specifically stated in the
complaint, their relations spoiled and animosity developed between them. It
is stated that, children of Respondent No.1 had purchased some land,
situated at village Chehedi Budruk, on 09.06.2009. The Petitioner decided to
Sonali Mane 201-WP-810-2010(J).doc
take disadvantage of the said transaction. So, with the help of opponents of
Respondent No.1, the Petitioner published a Public Notice (Exh.B) in a daily
'Lokmat' on 28.06.2009 containing defamatory material against Respondent
No.1, and intentionally defamed him. The Public Notice alleges that,
Respondent No.1 has caused registration of a false and bogus Sale Deed of
the said land in favour of his children to deny the sale deed of the said land
to Smt. Housabai Laxman Tajanpure, who is client of the Petitioner. Hence,
Respondent No.1 filed the said Cril. Misc. Appln. No.32 of 2010.
5) In view of the said complaint, the learned Magistrate recorded
the verification of Respondent No.1 and passed the impugned order dated
09.02.2010 (Exh.'C'), wherein it is held that, prima facie, the complaint
reveals that the accusations made in the Public Notice (Exh.B) are
defamatory in character for which investigation is necessary. Thus, there is
prima facie case to issue process against the Petitioner for the offences
punishable under Sections 500 and 501 of the Indian Penal Code and
directed to issue the process for the same. Hence, the process was issued.
But according to the Petitioner, he is innocent. Hence, this Petition.
6) Learned Advocate for the Petitioner submitted that, the
allegations made in the complaint itself show that, the same are vindictive
and made only with a view to settle personal scours. The said complaint has
been filed with a view to seek vengeance against the Petitioner. Even if the
Sonali Mane 201-WP-810-2010(J).doc
allegations made in the complaint are taken as they are, it does not make
out the offences for which the process has been issued. The Public Notice
was issued based on the instructions from Smt. Housabai Laxman Tajanpure,
who was client of the Petitioner. But Smt. Housabai Laxman Tajanpure has
not been made party to the subject Cril. Misc. Appln. No.32 of 2010. As
such merely because the said Notice was defamatory against Respondent
No.1 as alleged, it cannot form a basis for the complaint. Hence, the said
complaint is not sustainable in law. The impugned Order of issue of process
is nothing but a gross abuse of the process of law. Therefore, the impugned
order and the Criminal Complaint No.32 of 2009 are liable to be quashed
and set aside.
7) As against this, the learned APP submitted that, looking at the
events stated in the complaint and considering the documents enclosed
therewith, undoubtedly, the subject Public Notice is defamatory against
Respondent No.1. As such, the impugned Order of issue process is proper in
law. Hence, the Petition may be dismissed.
8) Considering the rival submissions, we have carefully considered
the Public Notice. This Notice has been published based on one typed
Notice, annexed to the petition at Page No.31. This typed notice is bearing
thumb impression of the notice sender Smt. Housabai Laxman Tajanpure.
From these circumstances it is clear that, first this typed Notice was prepared
Sonali Mane 201-WP-810-2010(J).doc
by the Petitioner on the instructions and information received from Smt.
Housabai Laxman Tajanpure and then it was published in the said daily
'Lokmat' at her instance and on her behalf and on her instructions.
Undisputedly, the Petitioner is an Advocate. There is no material to hold
that, the Petitioner alone was instrumental in causing the said notice
prepared, typed, approved & signed by Smt. Housabai Laxman Tajanpure
and publish it in the daily 'Lokmat' with an intention to defame Respondent
No.1. On the contrary, considering the material as a whole, it can be said
that, the Petitioner prepared and published the said notice only in his
capacity of an Advocate. Therefore no fault can be found with the Petitioner
merely because he has acted as an Advocate and published the said notice
based on the information and instructions received from the Smt. Housabai
Laxman Tajanpure. It is relevant to note that, Smt. Housabai Laxman
Tajanpure is not made party to the Cril. Misc. Appln. No.32 of 2010. Hence,
the Petitioner cannot be held responsible for the alleged defamatory material
contained in the said Notice and ultimately for the alleged offences under
Sections 500 and 501 of the Indian Penal Code, for which the process has
been issued against him.
9) In the result, we are of the considered view that, the impugned
Order dated 09.02.2010, issuing process under Sections 500 and 501 against
the Petitioner and Cril. Misc. Appln. No.32 of 2010 are not sustainable in
Sonali Mane 201-WP-810-2010(J).doc
law. Hence, the same are liable to be quashed and are accordingly quashed
and set aside.
10) Petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
11) Rule is made absolute.
(SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.) (A. S. GADKARI, J.)
