Jogesh Kumar Khaitan and others vs Balbir Singh Cheema

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.

This petition is filed for quashing the criminal complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 500 read with Section 499 IPC.

The respondent was appointed as Deputy General Manager (Personnel and Administration) in Amrit Paper Mills, Saila Khurd in the year 1990. He was later appointed as Executive Vice President on 16.4.1996. According to the petitioners, the respondent resigned from the service of the Company on 6.3.1998. Though the respondent was required to be given one month''s notice or forego one month''s pay in lieu of notice, the respondent expressed his desire to be relieved by adjusting one month leave which was due to his credit. Accordingly, the respondent submitted a leave application for 30 days. But subsequently, the respondent filed a suit in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Garhshankar for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners and the Company from terminating his services and for payment of his salary. In that suit, an ex parte injunction was granted. The petitioners put in appearance and filed a written statement and also a reply to the application for temporary injunction. In the written statement, the petitioners stated that the respondent had tendered his resignation on 6.3.1998 and also signed all the relevant documents. They also stated that the enquiries revealed that the papers have been removed from the file by the respondent.

On a consideration of the material on record, the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Garhshankar came to the conclusion that the respondent had not disclosed material facts in the suit and was guilty of suppression of truth and accordingly vacated the ex parte ad interim injunction granted in favour of the respondent. Thereafter the respondent filed a criminal complaint against the petitioners and two others in the Court of Sub Divisional Judical Magistrate, Garhshankar for the offences under Section 500 read with Section 499 I.P.C. In the said complaint, the respondent stated that the averments in paragraph 10 of the written statement of the petitioners are defamatory and that the imputations made by the petitioners, who are accused in that complaint, in their written statement have been made with an intention to harm the reputation of the complainant and the imputations made by them directly lower the moral and intellectual character of the complainant in the estimation of others. Therefore, according to the respondent (complainant), the petitioners and two others have committed offences under Section 500 read with Section 499 I.P.C. On the said complaint, the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Garhshankar summoned the accused including the petitioners.

Challenging the order of summoning dated 8.6.1998, the petitioners filed this petition for quashing the said complaint and the order passed thereon under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

On a consideration of the material on record, I am of the opinion that the complaint filed by the respondent is liable to be quashed. It is the respondent, who filed the suit and invited the petitioners to file the written statement in their defence. The respondent filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners and others from terminating his services and also for a direction to pay him the salary. In reply to that suit, the petitioners have to necessarily defend themselves. According to the defendants (who are petitioners herein), the respondentcomplainant submitted his resignation and he also applied for leave in lieu of the notice and also one month''s pay and wanted to be relieved forthwith. In the written statement, the defendants (petitioners herein) alleged that the respondent had removed some of the papers from the file. The Civil Court while dismissing the application for grant of an interim injunction pending disposal of the suit, after considering the averments made in the reply to application for temporary injunction and also in the written statement, came to the conclusion that the respondent suppressed the material facts and obtained an ex parte adinterim injunction and vacated the same on the ground of nondisclosure of material facts and suppression thereof.

Admittedly, the suit is still pending. When the Civil Court found on the interlocutory application for grant of injunction that the respondentcomplainant suppressed certain facts in his complaint, it cannot be said that the contentions raised by the defendants (petitioners herein) are prima facie false. It is open to a party to the civil litigation to raise all the pleas that are available to it. It is for the Civil Court to decide on the basis of the evidence whether the averments made in the written statement are true or not. But prima facie the Civil Court found that the allegations are correct and rejected the grant of injunction pending disposal of the suit believing the averments made in the written statement and the counter filed to the application for temporary injunction for vacating the adinterim injunction. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the simultaneous criminal proceedings cannot be allowed to be proceeded with.

When the respondentcomplainant himself filed the suit, the petitioners who are defending in that suit, have to necessarily contest the suit. When they alleged that the respondent in fact tendered his resignation and some of the papers have been removed by him from the file, it does not, in my view, amount to defamation. It cannot be said in the circumstances of the case that the averments have been made in the written statement without any reasonable ground. Further it is the respondent (complainant) who himself invited the petitioners (defendants) to take the pleas that are available to them under law in their written statement to nonsuit the plaintiffrespondent (complainant).

In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that complaint filed by the respondent and order passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Garhshankar dated 8.6.1998 summoning the petitioners are liable to be quashed.

The petition is accordingly allowed. The complaint No. 17 of 1998 filed by the complainant and the order passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Garhshankar dated 8.6.1998 (Annexure P5) summoning the petitioners are hereby quashed.