GEORGE J PYNADATH Vs. SUSHAMADEVI W/O SASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) First petitioner is the Managing Partner of the firm -M/s. Pynadath Finance Corporation. 2nd petitioner is his wife and 3rd petitioner is his mother-in-law. That firm was engaged in Kuri business and gold loan business. According to the petitioners, the firm had earned reputation as one of the leading financial agencies in Thrissur District. The first respondent in Crl.M.C. No.11484/2002 was the Manager of the firm for a long time. It was alleged that he was entrusted with the duty of maintaining books of accounts of the firm, keeping safe custody of gold ornaments etc. Sushamadevi, the first respondent in Crl.M.C.No.11483/ 2002 was the cashier of the firm for a long time. One Chandran was stated to be a clerk at the Head Office. There was allegation that Varghese, Sushamadevi and Chandran conspired to make illegal gain by cheating the petitioners. With that object in mind, the aforesaid three persons along with others misappropriated gold ornaments kept in the locker of the firm and removed gold ornaments. There was also allegation of fabrication and falsification of accounts. It was stated that a crime was registered as Crime No. 109/2002 in respect of the allegation of misappropriation of gold ornaments and defalcation of accounts as mentioned above. A suit was also filed before the Sub Court, Irinjalakuda as O.S. No. 379/2002 against Sushamadevi and Varghese mentioned above. In the mean while, the firm has published in the news paper that Varghese and Sushamadevi were dismissed from the service/employment of the firm and that if they enter into any dealings with other persons, the firm will not be bound by those dealings. The photographs of those two persons were also published along with the news items mentioned above. Those news items, according to the respondents in both petitions, were defamatory in nature and hence both of them filed separate complaints against the petitioners alleging offences under Sec. 499 r/w 500 IPC. These two petitions are filed to quash those complaints.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused would submit that the publications were effected to protect the interest of the firm since if such publications were not to be effected, if persons happened to deal with those two persons as if they are the employees of the firm, much damage will be caused to the firm, in its name, reputation and money. Therefore, according to the petitioners, there was no other alternative to bring that fact to the notice of the public and it was done in good faith to protect the interest of the firm. Learned counsel for the complainants would resist the submission and would submit that publications were effected with an intention to defame them. Whether the publications were effected in good faith to protect the interest of the firm and whether the petitioners are entitled to get protection on any of the exceptions referred to in Sec. 499 are matters which the petitioners can urge before the trial court at the appropriate stage. This Court while entertaining a petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. cannot go into the facts of the case to find whether the claim made by the petitioners is true or acceptable. Leaving all those questions to be considered by the trial court, these two petitions are only to be dismissed.