Delhi High Court
Vijay Saraogi & Ors. vs M/S Anupam Poly Products & Anr on 1 March, 2012
Author: Suresh Kait
$~20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. No.1557-61/2005
% Judgment delivered on: 01st March, 2012
VIJAY SARAOGI & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through : Mr.Mohit Mathur and Mr.Shishir
Mathur, Advs.
versus
M/S ANUPAM POLY PRODUCTS & ANR ..... Respondents
Through : Mr.Naveen Sharma, APP for State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Before entangling with the facts of the instant case, it would be
appropriate to mention that this case is connected with
Crl.M.C.No.3327/2000 which has since been allowed today itself.
The facts in both the cases are almost similar and wherever they differ
same shall be accordingly dealt in present order.
2. Vide order dated 03.06.2011 it is recorded as under:-
"Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits
that she has not received any instructions from
respondent No.1 since long time. She had issued a
notice to respondent No. 1 informing him that in
case no instructions are received, she would be
withdrawing from the brief as also intimating the
next date of hearing i.e. 31st May, 2011. Order
dated 31st May, 2011 shows that statement to this
effect was made on that date but since notice was
not placed on record, the matter was adjourned
for today. Photocopy of notice and postal receipt
have been placed on record. Since respondent
No.1 has stopped giving instructions to the
counsel, she is discharged from the brief. Date of
hearing has already been informed by the counsel
through the notice. Accordingly, I do not deem it
fit to issue the court notice to respondent No. 1.
Respondent No. 1 is proceeded ex-parte."
3. Mr.Mohit Mathur, learned counsel for petitioners has submitted
that Shri Rajender Kumar, authorised representative of respondent
No.1 has expired on 13.02.2010. To this effect, he has produced
original death certificate in connected matter being
Crl.M.C.No.33274/2000.
4. It is further submitted that respondent No.1 filed Criminal
Revision Petition No.247/2000 whereby the order dated 30.03.1998
has been challenged and said petition has already been dismissed for
non-prosecution vide order dated 03.06.2011. Till date, same has not
been challenged and attained finality.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner appearing in the above Crl.
Revision Petition, referred above, informed the Court that no
instructions have been received from the heirs and withdrew the
Vakaltnama, therefore, aforesaid petition was dismissed for non-
prosecution vide order dated 03.06.2010.
6. In the matter at hand also, since no instructions were received by
learned counsel for respondent No.1 despite informing through notice
by learned counsel. Thereafter, discharge from the case was sought by
learned counsel, which was allowed vide order dated 03.06.2011.
7. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in the instant case,
they have moved an application for dropping of proceedings before
learned Trial Court and same was declined observing the learned
Magistrate Court has no powers to review its order in view of the
decision Adalat Prasad v. Roop Lal Jindal 2004 (7) SCC 338.
8. The legal issue raised by learned counsel for petitioners is that
the complaint being filed by respondent No.1, is barred by limitation
and no case is made out against petitioners in view of the provisions
contained in Section 499 Indian Penal Code, 1860, which with
explanation Nos.8 & 9 reads as under:-
"499 Defamation:-
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, to defame that person.
Eighth Exception.--Accusation preferred in good
faith to authorised person.--It is not defamation
to prefer in good faith an accusation against any
person to any of those who have lawful authority
over that person with respect to the subject-matter
of accusation.
Illustration
If A in good faith accuse Z before a Magistrate; if
A in good faith complains of the conduct of Z, a
servant, to Z‟s master; if A in good faith complains
of the conduct of Z, and child, to Z‟s father--A is
within this exception.
Ninth Exception.--Imputation made in good faith
by person for protection of his or other's
interests.--It is not defamation to make an
imputation on the character of another provided
that the imputation be made in good faith for the
protection of the interests of the person making it,
or of any other person, or for the public good.
Illustrations
(a) A, a shopkeeper, says to B, who manages his
business--"Sell nothing to Z unless he pays you
ready money, for I have no opinion of his
honesty". A is within the exception, if he has made
this imputation on Z in good faith for the
protection of his own interests.
(b) A, a Magistrate, in making a report of his own
superior officer, casts an imputation on the
character of Z. Here, if the imputation is made in
good faith, and for the public good, A is within the
exception."
09. Therefore, learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that even
the complaint was not maintainable in the facts and circumstances of
the case.
10. The petitioner filed the complaint against respondent No.1 way
back on 06.10.1993 wherein under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C., learned
Magistrate directed the police to lodge the FIR. During investigation,
the office premises of respondent No.1 was searched. As a counter
blast, respondent No.2 filed a complaint under Section 500 Indian
Penal Code, 1860 against petitioner contending therein that because of
the search, he has been exposed; by this way, committed defamation
against him.
11. Learned counsel for petitioners further submitted that as per
explanation 8 & 9 to Section 499 Indian Penal Code, 1860, are saving
provision against him. Therefore, firstly, the complaint was not
maintainable against him. Moreso, the complaint was time barred as
under Section 500 Indian Penal Code, 1860, there is a limitation period
of one year from the date of alleged defamation.
12. To support the limitation aspect, learned counsel has relied upon
Krishna Pillai v. T.A.Rajendran& Anr 1990 (Supp) SCC 121 wherein
it was held that taking cognizance of offence after expiry of one from
the commission of offence barred.
13. Further relied upon Raghu Raj Singh Rousha v. Shivam
Sundram Promoters Pvt Ltd & Anr (2009) 2 SCC 363.
14. For the reasons mentioned above, impugned order dated
03.10.1997 summoning the petitioners for offence under Section
499/500/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 passed by learned Trial Court in
complaint case titled as „M/s.Anupam Poly Products v. Shri Vijay
Saraogi & Ors‟ and the proceedings emanating thereto are hereby set
aside. Petitioners stand discharged from all charges. Bail bonds
stand cancelled and sureties are discharged.
15. Accordingly, Crl.M.C.No.1557-61/2005 is allowed and stands
disposed of.
16. In view of above, Crl.M.A.No.4235/2005 for stay does not
require further adjudication and stands disposed of.
17. Dasti.
SURESH KAIT, J
MARCH 01, 2012
Mk
