MANIKANDAN B. Vs. PAVAN GAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the summoning order dtd. 29/1/2020 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate-06, South East, Saket District Court in complaint case No.4774/2019.

(2.) The petitioners have been summoned to face trial for having committed the alleged offences under Ss. 499/500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The respondent filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court alleging that by means of a letter dtd. 10/12/2018 the petitioner No.2 through the petitioner No.1 i.e., the Managing Director, had defamed the respondent in the eyes of the third persons being vendors. However, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Nalin Kohli, urged that unless and until there was an intention to cause harm and the contents of the letter had been made without a valid cause, no offence, even prima facie, would be made out against the petitioners. It is submitted that as regards the respondent No.2 being a company, it could have no mens rea as required under Sec. 499 and that straightway the summoning of the petitioner No.2 had to be quashed.

(3.) The petitioner No.1 has submitted that the letter in question was necessitated on account of the unlawful activities of the respondent himself. It was submitted that the respondent being an employee of the petitioner No.2, had not made fair disclosures to the petitioner No.2 before employment and had also thereafter engaged in activities detrimental to the interests of the company (petitioner No.2). The employment agreement between the petitioner No.2 and the respondent had come to an end on 31/3/2017 after which various extortionate demands had been made by the respondent upon the petitioner No.2, which the petitioner No.2 rejected. Thereafter, on 7/6/2018, the respondent resigned from the petitioner No.2/Company raising baseless allegations against the petitioner No.2/Company. The resignation was duly accepted.