AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anand Byrareddy, J.—The present petition is directed against the order dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner. It was the case of the complainant that the complainant had engaged the services of the respondents as her counsel. Respondent no. 1 was the senior-most counsel of the group. It is her allegation that over a period of time, the respondents started ill-treating her. It commenced with the junior members of the office, namely, respondents 2 to 5, abusing and being rude to her. Though she had complained to respondent no. 1, he did not take any action, but on the other hand, he had also started behaving rudely with her.
It is the further case of the complainant that on 3.2.2005, the respondent no. 2 had preferred a false complaint against the petitioner in Special CC No. 70/2005 before the II Additional City Sessions and Special Judge, Bangalore, to the effect that on 3.2.2005 at about 10.30 a.m., when the said respondent herein, who was a member of a Scheduled Caste came to the City Civil Court premises at Bangalore, the complainant had accosted him and had abused him with reference to his caste and threatened him that she would have him murdered and the petitioner was honourably acquitted in the said case by a judgment dated 28.6.2006.
It was the case of the petitioner -complainant that the institution of such a false case had seriously affected her social life and had defamed her and brought down her image in the eyes of people known to her in society.
The Magistrate having taken cognizance of the case and having examined the documents, has taken note of the fact that respondent no. 2 had filed a case alleging offences u/s 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Hereinafter referred to as the ''PA Act'', for brevity) and Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Hereinafter referred to as the ''IPC'', for brevity) and had cited his colleagues, respondents 3 to 5, as witnesses. But however, it was noticed that respondent no. 1 and his wife, respondent no. 6 were not parties to that proceeding and were not cited as witnesses and therefore, no case could be made out against them insofar as the grievance of the complainant was concerned. The Magistrate has further noticed that there was no connection insofar as the narration of the incidents said to have occurred on 3.2.2005 and 4.3.2005 by the complainant and the alleged defamation and therefore, would be irrelevant insofar as the complaint was concerned, as those incidents were subject matter of other proceedings and the allegation that she had handed over a sum of Rs. 36.00 lakh to respondent no. 1 was not supported by any document. And insofar as the judgment in Spl. CC 70/2005 is concerned, the same was disposed of and the complainant was acquitted on the ground that the prosecution had failed to establish its case. In that judgment, there was no finding that respondent no 2 had tendered false evidence or that the incident claimed by the said respondent had not taken place. The case was decided in favour of the complainant granting her the benefit of doubt. Hence, the complainant could not rely on the same to establish that a false case has been foisted against the complainant and therefore, it had seriously damaged her reputation and defamed her and has summarily dismissed the complaint. It is that which is under challenge in the present petition.
From a perusal of the record, as observed by the court below, respondents 1 and 6 were not parties to the complaint in Spl. CC no. 70/2005. Therefore, the complaint being dismissed against the said respondents, cannot be faulted.
Insofar as respondents 2 to 5 are concerned, as rightly observed by the court below, there is no finding that the incident had not taken place or that respondent no. 2 had tendered false evidence and the finding of the court below that the prosecution had failed to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt, would enable the petitioner to claim that she was acquitted on a benefit of doubt and therefore, it could not be characterized as a false case which stood established as such.
The Eighth exception to Section 499 of the IPC lays down that 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 and the same would enure to the benefit of respondents 2 to 5 and therefore, the dismissal of the complaint cannot be faulted.
Hence, the petition is dismissed.