M M RAJENDRAN Vs. K RAMAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) In 1994, a complaint came to be filed against the appellant by the respondent under Section 200 Indian Penal Code alleging that because of some press statements made by the appellant, which appeared in the press in June 1990, he (the respondent) suffered reduction in the sale of SPIC products, thereby incurring losses. The appellant approached the High court of Judicature at madras through a petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code praying for quashing of the complaint pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai. A learned Single Judge of the High court on 1/3/1996, while dismissing the petition filed by the appellant made the following order:

(3.) We have examined the application filed by the appellant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the complaint filed by the respondent and the other record. In our opinion arguable questions had been raised in the petition filed by the appellant but the same have not been dealt with at all by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the petition. The impugned order is wholly cryptic. There is no discussion let alone a finding, whether the facts stated in the complaint even prima facie disclose thecommission of an offence under Section 200 Indian Penal Code. Does the complaint contain the essential ingredients of the offence alleged against the appellant, has not also been dealt with. The appellant had inter alia raised the question of limitation as well as the necessity of obtaining sanction for his prosecution, those also have not been considered. Under the circumstances the impugned order cannot be sustained.