At, In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.H. JOSHI
For the Applicants: A.R. Deshpande, Advocate. For the Respondent: R1 to R6, A.J. Thakkar, Advocate, R7, P.V. Bhoyar, APP.
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith, and is heard finally by consent of parties.
2. Petitioner had filed a complaint against respondent Nos.1 to 6 reporting offence under Section 500 of Indian Penal Code. The offence, as complained of, which reveals from the contents of private complaint, can be summarized as follows:-
The respondent Nos.1 to 6 had filed a criminal case in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the said case was ultimately dismissed, since the present respondents failed to prove in the Court that the accused person (present petitioner) is the proprietor of the Firm, whose cheque was dishonoured.
3. The petitioner had not given a reply denying his nexus with Malani Agencies, whose cheque was dishonoured after the notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was received by present petitioner.
4. It is seen that present petitioner had filed an affidavit in the said criminal case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act at Mumbai, and denied his relationship with the Firm, yet did not disclose if he knew who was the proprietor of said Firm. Petitioner also did not plead lack of knowledge about said fact.
5. Learned Adv., for the petitioner has urged that filing of the said complaint at Mumbai and service of its summons on the petitioner at Akot itself has resulted into defamation.
6. Filing of a litigation may amount to publication as regards its contents.
7. On facts of this case, it is not the case of complainant (present petitioner) that said publication, which had occurred due to filing of case at Mumbai, caused defamation at Mumbai or at Akot.
8. What had occurred/or was done at Akot is the fact of service of summons. The service of summons at Akot by itself does not imply that contents of complaint were made public. It is not pleaded or explained by the petitioner as to how men or public at Akot got the knowledge and/or viewed the complaint unless the petitioner has himself done it.
9. This Court has perused the contents of complaint filed by the respondents under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act at Mumbai. It contains plain narration, namely issuance of cheque, its dishonour and failure to pay in spite of service of notice on petitioner as a proprietor. The contents of the said complaint filed by the respondents do not incorporate any derogatory language reflecting on character, integrity or reputation of the petitioner.
10. Learned Adv. Mr. Thakkar for respondents has stated that as a matter of fact, it has later revealed that Malani Agencies was a Firm, of which business was run by present petitioner, however, it actually stood in the name of son of the petitioner. Had this fact been brought to the knowledge of the respondents, the case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act may not have been filed by them against the petitioner.
11. This Court need not deal with this aspect, and it shall suffice to observe that filing of a complaint at Mumbai does not, in any manner, amount to publication at Akot, barely by fact of service of summons at Akot.
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
t appears is that the complainant had a grudge against the accused which he wanted to grind and for this purpose, he has filed a case under Section 500 of Indian Peal Code at Akot. 13. The order passed by the Revisional Court quashing issuance of process, therefore, does not call for interference. 14. Petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.