It is pertinent to note that in the verification statement, the specific
incidents have not been mentioned and, therefore, the Magistrate ought not to
have taken cognizances on the basis of the verification statement which appear to
be vague.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Mrs. Amy N. Irani
Vs
Mr. Viraf N. Chiniwala
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1590 of 2011
CORAM: SMT.SADHANA S.JADHAV,J.
DATE : 10th March, 2014.
Citation; 2014 ALLMR(CRI) 2832
Such of the facts necessary for the decision of this Writ Petition, are
as follows :-
The complainant in Criminal Case No.674/SS/2009 filed a complaint
(a)
before the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 4th Court at Girgaum, Mumbai on
31.8.2007 alleging therein that the present petitioner was indulging into character
assassination and defamation of the complainant. The complainant has alleged
that she is the resident of Flat No.9/2, Cassinath Building. The petitioner also
resides in the same building. Flat No.12A belongs to the father-in-law of the
present petitioner and it is situated just above the complainant's flat. The present
petitioner had undertaken the work of carrying out repairs in the aforesaid flat i.e.
flat No.12A. The complainant had filed a complaint to the Tardeo Police Station
alleging therein that the accused is indulging into illegal activities which creates
nuisance. On 2.9.2004, the complainant was called by the police for enquiry.
and in the presence of the police
The petitioner went to the police station
personnel, had told the police “Constable tum us-se baat mat karo, yeh tau pagal
aurat hai”. According to the complainant, she felt defamed due to the derogatory
remark made by the accused.
(b)
She has further alleged in the complaint that on 26.10.2005, the
Public Relations Officer, Tulsiwadi Post Office, Tardeo, Mumbai had visited the
premises of the said building for holding a personal enquiry regarding the
complaint made by the complainant about the mailing address of the trust.
According to the complainant, Navghare had visited the said building and made
enquiries. He had been to the address of the complainant and had recorded the
details. The accused i.e. the present petitioner met Navghare on the ground floor
and had told Mr. Navghare “Yeh aurat tau aadhi pagal hai”. The complainant felt
defamed again.
Proceedings were pending before the Deputy Charity Commissioner.
3.
The present petitioner was respondent in the said matter. She has not mentioned
the nature of the proceedings before the Deputy Charity Commissioner.
According to her, the present petitioner had filed an affidavit-in-reply on
7.9.2005. In the said affidavit in reply, the present petitioner has stated as follows
:-
“The records will show that the Applicant is a person with a
grievance complex and a chronic complainant who has been picking
up quarrels and shooting off letters without just case to the various
authorities including the Police Authorities and Municipal
Authorities, seeking to ventilate imaginary grievances and trying to
make them appear real.”
According to the complainant, she felt humiliated because of the contents of the
said affidavit.
The complainant has alleged that by a letter dated 4.4.2006, issued
4.
through her Advocate, she had called upon the accused to withdraw the
defamatory allegations and tender an unconditional apology within 30 days from
the date of receipt of the said letter. The accused had not complied with it. He
replied the said notice by a letter dated 21.4.2006, thereby denying the
contentions raised by the complainant. On 25.4.2006, in the office of Joint
Charity Commissioner, the petitioner has abused the complainant by making a
remark that her son was deported and had gone abroad on false and forged
passport.
According to the complainant, the said remark was made by the
accused in the presence of Joint Charity Commissioner Mr. Nanderkar and his
staff who are witnesses to the said incident.
5.
The verification of the complainant was recorded on 10.7.2008. it is
pertinent to note that in the verification statement, the complainant has not
deposed about the particular incidents or that the petitioner had made derogatory
remarks against her. It is stated in para 2 of the verification statement that “ I
have set out in my above complaint specific details as to how the Accused has
personally and in his Affidavit has indulged in my character assassination. I
reiterate and verify all the statements made by me in my complaint as true and
correct.” It is a matter of record that the particular incidents or the names of the
witnesses have not been mentioned. There was no reply to the specific remarks
made by the petitioner against her which could be termed as “character
assassination”. The learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate by his order
dated 6.10.2009 was pleased to issue process against the accused for the offence
Being aggrieved by the said issuance of process, the petitioner had filed
6.
punishable under Sections 500, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code.
Criminal Revision Application No.1514 of 2009 before the Sessions Court. The
Revisonal Court by an order dated 5.5.2011, has partly allowed the Revision. The
order of issuance of process against the applicant for the offence punishable under
Sections 500 and 504 was maintained. The order in respect of issuance of
process of the charge under Section 506 of IPC was set aside. The petitioner
questions the correctness and validity of the orders passed by that Court while
issuing process against the present petitioner.
7.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submits that in
the complaint, the complainant has given three instances pertaining to the years
2004, 2005 and 2006. The complaint was filed on 21.8.2007. The learned
offence alleged of the year 2004 is beyond the period of limitation.
Counsel for the petitioner rightly submits that the allegations in respect of the
8.
Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 contemplates :
“468. Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of
limitation:
(1)....
(2) The period of limitation shall be -
(c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for
a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years.”
Therefore, the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the offence
9.
which is alleged to have taken place in the year 2004.
It is pertinent to note that in the verification statement, the specific
incidents have not been mentioned and, therefore, the Magistrate ought not to
have taken cognizances on the basis of the verification statement which appear to
be vague.
10.
Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. contemplates :
“200.
Examination of complainant – A Magistrate taking
cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the
complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the substance of
such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by
the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate:”
::: Downloaded on - 29/08/2014 17:24:48 :::
Mhi
7
11.
Cri-WP-1590-11.sxw
Section 199 sub-clause (3) of the Cr.P.C. contemplates as follows :-
“199. Prosecution for defamation -
(3) Every complaint referred to in sub-section(2) shall set forth
the facts which constitute the offence alleged, the nature of such
offence and such other particulars as are reasonably sufficient to
give notice to the accused of the offence alleged to have been
committed by him.”
The plain reading of Section 199 sub-clause (3) along with Section 200 would
indicate that it would not be sufficient only to give details in the complaint as
ig
contemplated under Section 199(3) of Cr.P.C. but the same particulars have to be
given under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. also.
12.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the
judgment of this Court in the case of Arun Tikekar vs. Sanatan Sanstha ALL
MR (Cri) 2009 – 0 – 2545
“In absence of even a reference to the role of applicants in
verification statement, Magistrate could not have issued process
against the accused/applicants and hence impugned order as
against the applicants is illegal.”
13.
This Court has placed reliance upon the Judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of Sabitha Ramamurthy and Anr. Vs. R.B.S.
Channabasavaradhya (2006) 10 SCC 581. It was held as under :-
“....In terms of section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the
complainant is bound to make statements on oath as to how the offence
has been committed and how the accused persons are responsible therefor.
In the event, ultimately, the prosecution is found to be frivolous or
otherwise mala fide, the court may direct registration of case against the
complainant for mala fide prosecution of the accused. The accused would
also be entitled to file a suit for damages. The relevant provisions of the
Code of Criminal Procedure are required to be construed from the
aforementioned point of view.”
This Court has also placed reliance on the Judgment of this
Court in the case of Amarnath 2009 ALL MR (Cri) 184. It was observed
in para 22 thereof as follows :-
“22. On plain reading of section 200 of the said Code it appears that it is
the obligation of the Magistrate to examine the complainant which means
that the learned magistrate is obliged to put questions to the complainant
for eliciting the truth from him. The said provision enjoins a judicial duty
to be performed by the Judicial magistrate which requires an application
of judicial mind. The said work of recording the statement cannot be done
mechanically by simply filling cash details such as the date of cheque,
name of the bank, date of intimation of dishonour of the cheque etc; in a
format which is already kept ready. Generally, the complaints are drafted
by the lawyers as per the instructions of the complainants. Thus, a
complaint is the translated version or a formulated version made by the
advocate on the instructions received from the complainant. Therefore,
the examination of the complainant under section 200 by the learned
Magistrate is very important. During the course of such examination the
complaint tells the truth. In fact, the object of the learned Magistrate
recording such statement is of eliciting the truth from the complainant ....”
It is rightly observed that the Code of Criminal Procedure contemplates
verification of the complaint by the complainant to ascertain, determine
and get assured that the particulars mentioned in the complaint have been
substantiated, in the absence of which the Magistrate ought not to have
issued the process. The subjective satisfaction of the Magistrate on the
basis of examination on oath must be reflected in the order of issuance of
process. The genuineness and truthfulness of the contents of the complaint
The learned Counsel appearing for the original complainant/respondent
14.
have to be substantiated in the Examination on oath.
submits that the provisions of the Cr.P.C. are procedural aspects which need to be
construed in a liberal manner and that they shall not hamer the course of justice.
According to the learned Counsel for the respondent, the word `shall' stated in
Section 200 of Cr.P.C. should be read as “may be” in the interest of the
In fact, the complaint is a comprehensive statement setting out the facts
15.
complainant.
pertaining to three stray incidents ranging from 2004 to 2006. Upon perusal of
the contents of the complaint, it is seen that the words used by the petitioner are
(i) Pagal, (ii) Aadhi Pagal and (iii) her son is deported as he has travelled on a
false and forged passport. There is no justification to the said remarks made by
the petitioner.
The question is whether they can be said to be defamatory
statements has to be read in consonance with the other facts of the case.
It is a
matter of record that there are civil cases pending between the parties. The
complainant had filed a complaint against the present petitioner for defamation.
The process was issued against the present petitioner. Being aggrieved by the
said order,the petitioner had filed Criminal Application No.49 of 2011 in Case
No.650/2010, this Hon'ble Court by a judgment dated 8.3.2013, has quashed the
order of issuance of process by holding
that the process
issued upon the
16.
verification statement does not comply with the legal requirements itself.
The complainant had also filed criminal proceedings against the petitioner
under Section 31 of the Rent Act. The petitioner challenged the said order by
filing Writ Petition and this Court vide order dated 19.6.2009, has confirmed the
interim relief granted in favour of the accused petitioner while issuing rule on
The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant has
17.
21.4.2009.
filed several proceedings against the other persons besides the present petitioner
and therefore the remark 'chronic coomplainant' appears in the affidavit filed
18.
before the Charity Commissioner.
It is pertinent to note that in para 5 of the complaint, the complainant has
stated that the petitioner had filed affidavit in reply before the Charity
Commissioner.
In the complaint she has neither stated the number of the
complaint nor the nature of proceedings which were initiated. The learned
Counsel appearing for the complainant submits that in fact the said particulars set
out by the complainant that the said proceedings were pending before the Joint
Charity Commissioner under Section 47 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act
(Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1956).
In any case, the particulars are not
mentioned.
In respect of 3rd allegation pertaining to 25th April, 2006, it is stated
19.
in the complaint that the said incident has taken place in the office of the Joint
Charity Commissioner. The Joint Charity Commissioner has not been stated as a
witness in the list of witnesses. In the course of inquiry under Section 202 of
Cr.P.C., the police officer had recorded the statement of the Post Master,
Tulsiwadi Post Office who has been referred to as Public Relations Officer by the
complainant. The Post Master has referred the petitioner as President of the
Society. He has specifically disclosed to the police that the present petitioner had
informed him that the said lady is constantly filing complaints against one person
or the other”. There is no reference of referring the complainant as an insane
person or a partly insane person.
The verification statement is devoid of
particulars stated in the complaint and on this ground the Petition would succeed.
Hence, the proceedings initiated against the present petitioner for the
20.
offence punishable under Sections 500 and 504 of IPC in case No.674 of 2009
pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 4th Court, Girgaum, Mumbai, are
hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Writ
Petition is disposed of.
(SMT.SADHANA S.JADHAV, J.)
No comments:
Post a Comment