NARENDRA KAPOOR Vs. RAMESH C BANSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the summoning order dated 23.11.1995 against the petitioner. The facts which appear to be from the record are that respondent No.1 Ramesh C.Bansal lodged a complaint before the concerned Magistrate alleging that two persons, namely, Narender Kapoor and Pramod Adlakha committed offences under Sections 499/500, Indian Penal Code making public letter dated 12.1.1990 (Annexure A). After recording of the statement the learned Magistrate has by the impugned order summoned the aforesaid two accused persons.

(2.) On scrutiny, it is to be found that though the letter was on the letter head of Adlakha and Associates of which the petitioner is a partner but it is signed only by Pramod Adlakha. In the statement given by the complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure it is to be found that no averments were made against the petitioner Narender Kapoor. Only this much is stated that accused No.1, namely, Pramod Adlakha had circulated the letter signed by him at a meeting on the letter pad of Adlakha and Associates and that the accused No.1 Pramod Adlakha only was called on the dais to explain the contents of the alleged defamatory letter. Therefore, it is clear that the complainant while examining himself before the court concerned under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure did not say on oath anything accused No.2 (who is the petitioner here).

(3.) I have perused the impugned order of the learned Magistrate dated 23.11.1995. On perusal of the same, it appears that the learned Magistrate did not accept the contentions of accused No.2 on the grounds that certain averments were made that the letter was circulated in connivance with accused No.2 and that the accused No.2 was partner of a firm on whose letter head the defamatory letter was circulated and that at that stage he would not be in a position to decide whether the alleged defamatory letter was circulated with the connivance of accused No.2 or not. I am not able to understand as to why he addressed that question to himself when the complainant did not state on oath that the defamatory letter was issued in connivance with accused No.2 (the petitioner here). If a letter is issued on the pad of a firm and if a person complains that the letter is defamatory and comes to the court for criminal prosecution for offences under Sections 499/500, there cannot be any general vicarious criminal liability on the rest of the partners, who did not sign the letter unless it is averred in the statements under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the persons not signing the letter had also the criminal intent of defaming the complainant. In the present case, I do not find any such evidence on record against the petitioner. In this petition as well as in the Court below there has been a consistent case of the petitioner that he was not author of the alleged defamatory letter. Therefore, the petitioner's summoning under the complaint in question cannot be sustained. In these circumstances, order dated 23.11.95 is quashed in respect of that part under which the petitioner has been summoned.