LUNDBECK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by accused Nos.1 to 3, challenging the issuance of process as against the petitioners-accused and praying this Court to set aside/quash the order dated 30.11.2011 in PCR.No.24/2011 (CC.No.1006/2011) passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court-I, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioners that petitioner No.1 M/s.Lundbeck India Private Limited, is a Company registered under the Companies Act. It is dealing with multinational pharmaceutical aspects and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the Managing Director and General manager, Legal & Company Secretary. The said Company manufactures drugs including "Deanxit" which is a combination of Melitracen-10 mg and Flupenthixol 0.5 mg. It has also a license for manufacture and marketing of the said product. One Dr.Chandra M.Gulhati, Author, Publisher, Editor and Printer of Monthly Index of Medical Specialities (MIMS) published a defamatory article which reads as under:-

(3.) The aforesaid publication deteriorated the reputation of the petitioner-Company and also affected the medical community as a whole as well as the general public. The publication of Dr.Gulhati did not relate in generic terms to a combination drug as stated above. It related in specific terms to Deanxit, the trade name under which Lundbeck markets its product containing Melitracen 10 mg and Flupenthixol 0.5 mg. The said article targeted the petitioner-Company and as such the Company was constrained to issue a legal notice to MIMS calling upon to refrain from disparaging the reputation and credentials of the petitioner-Company. Despite receipt of such notice, MIMS continued to publish the defamatory article vide its various editions and as such petitioner-Company initiated criminal proceedings in PCR.No.3748/2011 before the Metropolitan Magistrate Bangalore. The aforesaid publication not only led to causing disrepute and disesteem to the petitioner- Company, but also triggered off a series of republications by multiple other parties and the said publications affected the business of the petitioner-Company, as such the petitioners proceeded to make clarificatory announcement in 'Times of India', Delhi Edition, dated 24.2.2011, 'The New Indian Express' dated 25.2.2011, 'Bangalore Mirror', dated 24.2.2011 so also approached this Court in WP.No.7570/2011. This Court by an order dated 2011 disposed of the said writ petition directing the DCGI to provide an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner-Company before initiating any action for preventing and supplying Deanxit. On 11.2011, the Director General of Health Services issued a notice to the first petitioner-Company to explain its position with regard to the impugned publication made pertaining to Deanxit to which the petitioner-Company gave a detailed reply on 28.2011 and another reply on 29.2011 explaining its position vis-a-vis the publication made in "Times of India" and "The Hindu" newspapers.