C. Kishanlal v. Gouthamraj Surana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 06.08.2009CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNANCrl.O.P.No.22675 of 2007andM.P.No.1 of 2007C. Kishanlal.. Petitioner.VersusGouthamraj Surana,Chairman,M/s. Surana Industries Limited,Chennai – 600 029... Respondent Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to call for the recordsin C.C.No.8647 of 2007 on the file of the VII MetropolitanMagistrate, George Town, Chennai-600 001 and quash the same holdingthe same as illegal and devoid of merits and allow the petition.(C.C.No. is amended as per order of thisCourt dated 30.08.2007 made in M.P.No.3of 2007)For Petitioner : Mr. A.Thiyagarajan, Senior Counsel for M/s. F. Kamal BaigFor Respondent : M/s. P. Deepa O R D E RThis petition has been filed by the petitioner to call for therecords in C.C.No.8647 of 2007 on the file of the VII MetropolitanMagistrate, George Town, Chennai-600 001 and quash the same.2.The respondent/complainant, who is the Chairman of the twoCompanies, namely, Surana Corporation Limited and Surana IndustriesLimited, has filed C.C.No.8647 of 2007 against the petitioner/accusedfor an alleged offence under Section 500 IPC. The ingredients of thecomplaint is as follows:-The Surana Industries Limited is a public limited company, andit was originally incorporated as "Surana Metals and Steels IndiaLtd. It was conducting business of manufacturing and trading of all https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ varieties of steel, for construction and infrastructure activities.The name of the complainant company was changed as "Surana IndustriesLtd" on 05.02.2002. The company in order to expand its businessintended to set up an Integrated Steel Complex at Raichur, State ofKarnataka. The Government of Karnataka had approved its proposal andallotted the required land to start industry. 3.The complainant further alleged that the accused while sohad lodged a false complaint, with the Commissioner of Police,Chennai, against Dineshchand Surana, the Managing Director of thecomplainant, linking him with another company M/s. Surana CorporationLtd. He had levelled charges of cheating, Criminal intimidationetc., against him. The latter is neither a Director of SuranaCorporation Ltd, nor is he involved in the administration of SuranaCorporation Ltd, in any way. The complainant further alleges thatthe complainant company proposed to go for a public issue for nearly300 Crores to finance the proposed Integrated Steel Project atRaichur. The impugned communication and the complaint to the policestated supra had adversely affected the image of the company. Theaccused had sent a communication dated 31.03.2006, containing falseand libellous allegations against the complainant's company, to theRegistrar of Companies, Bangalore and the copies were marked to 12persons, including the Governor of Karnataka, Industrial Secretary ofKarnataka Government, Karnataka Industrial Development Board,Bangalore. 4.The averment in the communication of the petitioner dated31.03.2006 that the "integrity and genuineness" of the affairs andactivities of the company are under judicial scanner is not true. Itis admitted that an First Information Report is registered againstDineshchand Surana and eight others in their personal capacity andnot as Directors of any company much less the complainant company.Neither Surana Corporation Ltd, nor Surana Industries Ltd, isfiguring as an accused in the First Information Report stated above.Further, the complainant states that a First Information Report isregistered by the investigating agency and no final report has beenfiled. The complaint is forwarded only with a view to prejudice theauthorities and tarnish the image of the complainant. 5.The complainant further states that as the allegations wereper se defamatory, and the same had harmed his reputation, theaccused had committed an offence punishable under Section 500 IPC. 6.The complainant had issued a notice on 06.05.2006 to theaccused demanding unconditional apology and to pay a sum ofRs.10,00,00,000/- (Rupees ten crores only) within a week from thedate of receipt of notice, failing which the complainant had statedthat he would launch appropriate proceedings to vindicate its honour.The accused had sent a reply dated 16.05.2006 through his counsel, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ with false allegations which are defamatory. Hence, the complainanthas lodged this complaint before the VII Metropolitan Magistrate,George Town, Chennai and the same has been taken on file asC.C.No.8647 of 2007 under Section 200 Cr.P.C for an offencepunishable under Section 500 IPC, by the learned Magistrate. Insupport of the complainant's case, he has mentioned five witnessesand enclosed three documents.7.Challenging the complaint, the petitioner has filed theabove Criminal Original Petition to quash the case of the respondentherein. The respondent has alleged that the petitioner has sent acommunication on 31.03.2006 containing false and libellousallegations against the complainant's company, to the Registrar ofCompanies, Bangalore and that the copies were marked to 12 persons,including the Governor of Karnataka, Industrial Secretary ofKarnataka Government, Karnataka Industrial Development Board,Bangalore. The petitioner has categorically admitted the businessactivities of the respondent. The petitioner submitted that the saidDharmendra Bafna is the close relative of the respondent and sub-agent of the Surana Corporation Limited. Through him, the petitionertook part in the said business. In the said business, the petitionerhas invested a sum of Rs.4.65 crores, through the sub agent of theSurana Corporation Ltd.8.On a tip off, the petitioner closed his account with thesub agent of the Surana Corporation Ltd., on 02.12.2005 and the sub-agent had duly signed in the diary that the petitioner has 4.95crores (4.65 crores capital and 30 lakhs profit) account balance andasked the petitioner to meet the directors of the respondent companyon 10.12.2005 to collect the money. When the petitioner went toSurana Corporation Ltd, the sub-agent of Surana Corporation Ltd,Mr.Goutham raj Surana, the Chairman of both compnaies, VijayrajSurana, one of the Director of Surana Corporation Ltd, along with therespondent and their men put the petitioner inside the office andclaimed Rs.2 crores from him, being loss to the company. The samewas clarified by the petitioner. Immediately, all the respondentsjointly threatened him. The petitioner lodged a complaint with theCity Commissioner of Police on 30.12.2005. Subsequently, case wasregistered in Crime No.60 of 2006 on an alleged offence underSections 406, 409, 420 and 506(ii) r/w. 120(b) IPC. Immediately, therespondent and others moved bail before this Hon'ble Court.9.The petitioner has alleged that this act of the respondentclearly shows they have conspired to commit fraud. The petitionerhas alleged that the respondent has filed this case with ulteriormotive because the petitioner has filed a criminal case with thepolice against the respondent. Further, the petitioner pointed outthat the dispute which arose between the respondent company directorsand himself is only on the basis of business transactions. So, to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ invoke Section 500 IPC is not maintainable. Further, the petitionerpointed out that regarding this dispute a civil suit in C.S.No.200 of2006 is pending in this Court. The petitioner further contended thatthe respondent has not pointed out any imputations which lowered downthe reputation of the respondent. In the said representation to thevarious authorities by the petitioner, a disclosure about what hadbeen the dispute and the facts of the case was only said and nodefamatory statements were made against the respondent. Further, thepetitioner has alleged that he has taken legal steps to safeguard hisright and such an act cannot be termed as defamation.10.Considering the contentions of the complainant and thepetitioner and after hearing the arguments of the learned counselsfor the respective parties, and perusal of the documents presented byboth sides, the Court is of the view that the dispute arose on thebasis of the business transactions between the petitioner and therespondent. The petitioner's representation dated 31.03.2006, sentto various government officials and elected representatives of thepeople, has narrated the dispute between the parties. Further, theCriminal and Civil Case between the parties on the same cause ofaction are also pending before the Hon'ble High Court and City CivilCourt. As such the C.C.No.8647 of 2007 on the file of the VIIMetropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai-600 001 cannot bequashed and it has to be tried before the learned Magistrate.Therefore, this Court directs the learned VII MetropolitanMagistrate, George Town, Chennai-600 001, to dispose the case, asexpeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six monthsfrom the date of receipt of a copy of this order.11.With the above observation, the Criminal Original Petitionis disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition isclosed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar/true copy/ Sub Asst.RegistrarmraTo1.The VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai-600 001. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.-do- Thro' The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai-8.3. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court, Madras-104.+2 cc to M/s.P.Deepa, Advocate, SR.No.36929Crl.O.P.No.22675 of 2007andM.P.No.1 of 2007NM {CO}TP/19.8.2009.