Delhi High Court
D.K.Pandey vs State & Anr. on 14 September, 2010
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: August 03, 2010
Date of Order: September 14, 2010
+ Crl. M.C. No.4073/2009
% 14.09.2010
D.K. Pandey ...Petitioner
Versus
State & Anr. ...Respondents
AND
+ Crl. M.C. No.4074/2009
% 14.09.2010
D.K. Pandey ...Petitioner
Versus
State & Anr. ...Respondents
Counsels:
Ms. Anjali Jha for petitioner.
Mr. Neeraj Jain for respondent.
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes.
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes.
JUDGMENT
1. By this common order, I shall dispose of the above two petitions preferred
by the petitioner against the summoning order dated 26 th February, 2009 passed
by learned Metropolitan Magistrate in two complaints made by two complainants
against the petitioner.
Crl. MC No.4073/2009 & 4074/2009 Page 1 Of 4
2. The complainants filed a complaint each under Section 499,500 IPC
against the petitioner since the petitioner had issued a Circular to its all agents
and customers. The circular reads as under:-
"Date: 12.11.2008
CIRCULAR
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
This is to inform that M/s Gupta Brothers/ M/s R.P. Gupta
& Sons, 3676, Gali Shahtara, G.B. Road, Delhi-110 006
are Not our Authorized Dealer.
It has come to our notice that "MIRANDA" make items are
being sold at Higher Discounts for which we will not be
responsible for Genuineness & Quality complaint of
material.
Thanks,
For M/s. MIRANDA TOOLS PVT. LTD.
sd/-
D.K.PANDEY
REGIONAL MANAGER"
3. It is not in dispute that neither Gupta Brothers nor M/s R.P. Gupta & Sons
are authorized dealers of the petitioner. However, respondents/complainants in
their complaint contended that the respondents were very reputed dealers in the
market and this circular harmed their reputation because the circular gave an
impression that the tools being sold by the complainants /respondents were not
genuine or of good quality.
4. Section 499 IPC Explanation 10 reads as under:
"Section 499. Defamation
Crl. MC No.4073/2009 & 4074/2009 Page 2 Of 4
Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or
by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes
any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or
knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will
harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the
cases hereinafter expected, of defame that person.
xxxxx
Tenth Exception-Caution intended for good of person to
whom conveyed or for public good: --It is not defamation to
convey a caution, in good faith, to one person against
another, provided that such caution be intended for the good
of the person to whom it is conveyed, or of some person in
whom that person is interested, or for the public good."
5. The first part of circular being truthful thus cannot be considered as a
publication for harming the reputation of the respondents. The second part of the
circular is a caution issued by the petitioner to the customers that they would not
be responsible for genuineness and quality of the items sold at higher discounts.
It is obvious that the petitioner wanted to convey to the public that if anybody was
giving higher discount, there was probability that the material sold was not of
genuine quality and the petitioner company would not be responsible for the
quality.
6. The learned MM while passing summoning order had only discussed that
the complainant was a company of repute. He did not discuss how the issuance of
circular amounted to defamation of the complainants company. While passing
summoning order, it is obligatory on the part of learned MM to consider the
material and evidence placed on record in the light of offence allegedly committed
Crl. MC No.4073/2009 & 4074/2009 Page 3 Of 4
and analyze it so as to come to a conclusion whether the commission of offence
in terms of provisions of law was disclosed or not. Just reproducing a part of the
evidence and stating that he was satisfied that there was sufficient material on
record to summon the accused, only shows non-application of mind. Such an
order is a mechanical order since the trial court did not apply mind whether the
ingredients of the offence were prima facie satisfied or not in view of the
explanations given in the section itself. It is the duty of the court to consider if the
alleged act falls under any of the explanation or not. The learned MM in this case
abdicated this obligation of analyzing the material in the light of provisions of
Section 499 IPC.
7. I find that the complaints were a gross misuse of judicial process and the
petitioner was within its right to issue a caution notice /circular to the customers
and general public and to inform them that the complainants/ respondents were
not their authorized dealers and then to caution that if their brand of tools were
being sold at higher discounts then public should take caution about the
genuineness and quality.
8. In the result, the petitions are allowed and the summoning order dated 26th
February, 2009 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate in two complaints
made by two complainants against the petitioner are hereby set aside.
9. The petitions stand allowed.
September 14, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J
rd
Crl. MC No.4073/2009 & 4074/2009 Page 4 Of 4
