High CourtsSingle Bench(1990) 11 AHC CK 0144

Mahendra Kumar Agarwal vs Satyandra Kumar Varshney

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 26 November 1990 · Citation: (1991) 1 AWC 101

HON’BLE JUDGES
Palok Basu, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 3842 of 1982

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 317 words

Palok Basu, J.—Mahendra Kumar Agrawal Chief Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Agra preferred this petition u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure against lodging and continuance of Criminal Case No. 1537/1981 u/s 500 IPC initiated at the complaint of opposite party Satyendra Kumar Varshney. The facts stated in the complaint are that the State Bank of India advanced some loan to the complainant for construction of a building which was named as ''Kumar Bhawan'' and an agreement was reached that the loan amount may be adjusted initially through the monthly rent payable. As agreed upon in the lease deed. In a local paper an advertisement appeared is follows.

RAJAT JAYANTI VARSH MEN BHARTIYA STATE BANK FIRO-ZABAD SHAKHA GRAHAKON KI BEHATAR SEWA KB WYE APNE NAVNIRMIT BHAWAN BYE PASS ROAD PAR AAJ SOMWAR DINANK 14 JANUARY 1979 KO STHANANTRIT HO RAAA HAI.

2.

The charge in the complaint is that since the said house was described as "APNE NAVNIRMIT BHAWAN" therefore, it amounted to defamation in the eyes of others as it lowered the status of the Applicant in others estimation.

3.

The admitted position stated in the complaint is that the building was constructed on having obtained some loan from the State Bank of India. That apart, the aforesaid advertisement only indicated the possession or occupation of the State Bank of India in the newly occupied building. It has absolutely no concern whatsoever with the ownership thereof. If for such insignificant things the complainant feels damage in reputation, he must thank himself. To say the least, this will not come in any of the clauses of the defamation as explained in Section 499 IPC.

4.

The result of the above discussion is that this application must be allowed. The complaint and further proceedings in case No. 1537/1981 Satyendra Kumar Varshney v. Mahendra Kumar Agarwal pending in the court of Additional Munsif Magistrate Firozabad (Agra) are hereby quashed.