(Ranjan Gogoi and Prafulla C. Pant, JJ.)
M.L. Wadhawan _____________________________________ Appellant
v.
Zunzarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar and Others _______________ Respondent(s)
Criminal Appeal No. 920 of 2016 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 5730 of 2012], decided on September 27, 2016
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. The challenge in this appeal is against the order dated 11.06.2012 in Criminal Application No. 3634 of 2000 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, by which the criminal proceeding under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused-appellant has been refused to be quashed. Aggrieved by this order, this appeal has been filed by the accused.
3. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for both the parties and have considered the matter in its entirety including the show cause notice issued to the complainant-respondent; the affidavit filed by the Union of India before the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 3332 of 1995 and also the alleged defamatory statements contained in the written submissions of the appellant before the adjudicating authority. We find that in sum and substance, what is contained in the written submissions filed by the appellant before the Adjudicating Authority is a reiteration of statements recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, of Sri Jolly Perumal, Customs House agent who was charged along with the complainant-respondent and also the statements made in the show cause notice issued to the respondent-complainant and those contained in the counter affidavit filed before the Bombay High Court as mentioned above.
4. In the above facts, we are of the view that, prima facie, no case of defamation under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code is made out on the allegations levelled against the appellant. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 499 read with the Exceptions thereto are not made out so as to warrant continuance of the impugned criminal proceedings. We, therefore, interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court and quash the criminal proceedings against the accused-appellant.
5. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
6. As a sequel to the above, pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 5730/2012
M.L. Wadhawan _____________________________________ Petitioner
v.
Zunzarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar & Ors __________________ Respondent(s)
Date: 27/09/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today.
(Before Ranjan Gogoi and Prafulla C. Pant, JJ.)
For Petitioner(s)
Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Adv.
Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
Mr. K. Radhakrishna, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Ranjana Narayan, Adv.
Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, Adv.
Mr. Nitin Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Mitali Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
Order
7. Leave granted.
8. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
9. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
———
