LATA PUROHIT Vs. KATTERAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in P.C. No. 21/2005 (C.C. No. 251/2005) pending on the file of the Principal JMFC, Gangavati. The respondent herein has filed a complaint before the trial Court on 28.07.2005 alleging the commission of the offences under Sections 500 and 420 read with Section 34 of IPC against the petitioners and one Sri. Venkataramaiah, Deputy General Manager of Canara Bank, Customer's Service Section. The learned Magistrate has dismissed the said complaint by the order dated 24.10.2009. The complainant approached the Sessions Court in Criminal Revision Petition No. 2/2010 and by the order dated 08.01.2010, the learned Sessions Judge, Koppal has set aside the order dated 24.10.2009 and directed the learned Magistrate to record the sworn statement of the complainant and pass the order on that behalf on that day itself without adjournment. Hence on 10.08.2010, the learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order which reads as follows:

(2.) Heard Sri. Mahabaleshwar Hasinal, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. Arvind Kulkarni, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that on a perusal of the entire materials on record, no offence is made out against the petitioners under Section 500 IPC as there is absolutely no defamatory material made out against the petitioners. The petitioners submit that they being the bank officials have acted in discharge of their official duties and in the course of the performance of the said official duties, a letter was addressed to the respondent stating that his complaint made before the higher authorities was false and that the respondent has misbehaved with the bank managers of the various banks. The contents of the alleged letter is neither per-se defamatory nor imputes any false allegations against the respondent, but it is a statement of fact made on the basis of the enquiry conducted by them. He further submits that there is no element of cheating at all and on perusing the entire materials placed before the learned Magistrate, the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the offence under Section 420 IPC against the petitioners. He further submits that the order passed by the learned Magistrate does not at all discuss as to how the offence under Section 500 IPC or 420 IPC is made out and it is a clear abuse of process of law in allowing the private complaint and issuing the process against the petitioners. Hence he submits that the entire proceedings in P.C. No. 21/2005 are liable to be quashed.