C. Kishanlal v. Dineshchand Surana Managing Director, M/s. Surana Industries Limited, Chennai-79

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 06.08.2009CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNANCrl.O.P.No.22676 of 2007andM.P.No.1 of 2007C. Kishanlal.. Petitioner.VersusDineshchand SuranaManaging Director,M/s. Surana Industries Limited,Chennai-79... Respondent Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to call for therecords in C.C.No.8649 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 ofthis Court dated 30.08.2007 made inM.P.No.3 of 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.8649 of 2007 on the file of the VII MetropolitanMagistrate, George Town, Chennai-600 001 and quash the same.2.The respondent/complainant has filed C.C.No.8649 of 2007against the petitioner/accused for an alleged offence under Section500 IPC. The ingredients of the complaint is as follows:-The complainant is a public limited company, and it wasoriginally incorporated as "Surana Metals and Steels India Ltd. Itwas conducting business of manufacturing and trading of allvarieties of steel, for construction and infrastructure activities. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The name of the complainant company was changed as "SuranaIndustries Ltd" on 05.02.2002. The company in order to expand itsbusiness intended to set up an Integrated Steel Complex at Raichur,State of Karnataka. The Government of Karnataka had approved itsproposal and allotted 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. SuranaCorporation Ltd. He had levelled charges of cheating, Criminalintimidation etc., against him. The latter is neither a Director ofSurana Corporation Ltd, nor is he involved in the administration ofSurana Corporation Ltd, in any way. The complainant furtheralleges that the complainant company proposed to go for a publicissue for nearly 300 Crores to finance the proposed Integrated SteelProject at Raichur. The impugned communication and the complaint tothe police stated supra had adversely affected the image of thecompany. The accused had sent a communication dated 31.03.2006,containing false and libellous allegations against the complainant'scompany, to the Registrar of Companies, Bangalore and the copieswere marked to 12 persons, including the Governor of Karnataka,Industrial Secretary of Karnataka Government, Karnataka IndustrialDevelopment 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.It is admitted that an First Information Report is registeredagainst Dineshchand Surana and eight others in their personalcapacity and not as Directors of any company much less thecomplainant company. Neither Surana Corporation Ltd, nor SuranaIndustries Ltd, is figuring as an accused in the First InformationReport stated above. Further, the complainant states that a FirstInformation Report is registered by the investigating agency and nofinal report has been filed. The complaint is forwarded only with aview to prejudice the authorities and tarnish the image of thecomplainant. 5.The complainant further states that as the allegationswere per 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 itshonour. The accused had sent a reply dated 16.05.2006 through his https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ counsel, with false allegations which are defamatory. Hence, thecomplainant has lodged this complaint before the VII MetropolitanMagistrate, George Town, Chennai and the same has been taken on fileas C.C.No.8649 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 thesaid Dharmendra Bafna is the close relative of the respondent andsub-agent of the Surana Corporation Limited. Through him, thepetitioner took part in the said business. In the said business,the petitioner has invested a sum of Rs.4.65 crores, through the subagent of the Surana 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 withthe respondent and their men put the petitioner inside the officeand claimed Rs.2 crores from him, being loss to the company. Thesame was clarified by the petitioner. Immediately, all therespondents jointly threatened him. The petitioner lodged acomplaint with the City Commissioner of Police on 30.12.2005.Subsequently, case was registered in Crime No.60 of 2006 on analleged offence under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 506(ii) r/w. 120(b)IPC. Immediately, the respondent and others moved bail before thisHon'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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ directors and himself is only on the basis of business transactions.So, to invoke Section 500 IPC is not maintainable. Further, thepetitioner pointed out that regarding this dispute a civil suit inC.S.No.200 of 2006 is pending in this Court. The petitioner furthercontended that the respondent has not pointed out any imputationswhich lowered down the reputation of the respondent. In the saidrepresentation to the various authorities by the petitioner, adisclosure about what had been the dispute and the facts of the casewas only said and no defamatory statements were made against therespondent. Further, the petitioner has alleged that he has takenlegal steps to safeguard his right and such an act cannot be termedas 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 presentedby both sides, the Court is of the view that the dispute arose onthe basis of the business transactions between the petitioner andthe respondent. The petitioner's representation dated 31.03.2006,sent to various government officials and elected representatives ofthe people, has narrated the dispute between the parties. Further,the Criminal 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.8649 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.Registrarmra https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1.The VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai-600 001.2.-do- Thro The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,Egmore, Chennai.Copy to:The Section Officer,Criminal Section,High Court,Madras.+2ccs to Mr.P.Deepa,Advocate Sr 36928NM(CO)km/19.8.Crl.O.P.No.22676 of 2007andM.P.No.1 of 2007