R N GOEL Vs. NIRMAL GOEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed by the Petitioner Shri R. N. Goel, Advocate under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. P. C.) for quashing of criminal complaint dated 11. 09. 2006 filed by the respondent under Section 500 Indian Penal Code (IPC) for defamation read with Section 200 Cr. P. C. and for setting aside the summoning order dated 25. 05. 2007 in the said complaint passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari, Delhi.

(2.) PETITIONER was appointed as a Senior Central Government counsel by the Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India on 17. 02. 2006 for conducting an arbitration case titled 'm/s. ERA Construction (India) Limited V/s. Union of India' vide letter dated 17. 02. 2006 being letter F. No. 30 (1) 2006 for contesting the arbitration case on behalf of the Union of India. On 22. 03. 2003 respondent Nirmal Goel, an engineer who was the Departmental Representative approached the Petitioner and asked him to complete the case within two or three hearings, although the claims of the contractor were for about rupees two and a half crores; to which the petitioner replied that since the claim was of a large amount, the proceedings could not be concluded in such a short time and it was for the arbitrator to decide the case. But since the respondent was adamant in his approach, the Petitioner wrote a letter' on 24. 03. 2006 in his official capacity as Senior Government counsel to Shri V. K. Chugh the then Chief Engineer, by name under Speed Post with a view to safeguard the financial interest of the Government. In this letter the Chief Engineer, Mr. V. K. Chugh being the legal administrative authority over the respondent, was informed about the conduct of the respondent which appeared to be favouring the claimant contractor. This resulted into the complainant/respondent filing a complaint on 11. 09. 2006 under Section 500 IPC read with Section 200 Cr. P. C. with the allegations that the Petitioner had defamed him by writing the said letter to the Chief Engineer. After taking cognizance of the offence on the basis of pre-summoning evidence, the learned M. M. issued summons against the Petitioner vide order dated 25. 05. 2007. Aggrieved by the summoning order, the present petition has been filed.

(3.) PETITIONER has challenged the maintainability of the complainant as well as the summoning order of the court on the following grounds:-