SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD Vs. PAUL VAREED CHERUVATHOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused Nos.1 to 9 in CC No.45/10 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur are the petitioners herein. They filed the petition before this Court to quash Annexure A complaint and all further proceedings in CC No.45/10 of that court as regards the petitioners are concerned, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, the Code).

(2.) The case of the petitioners in the petition was that the first respondent was an employee of the first petitioner bank and some disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and thereafter, he was dismissed from service. While he was working at Ananthawady Branch, Tamil Nadu, he filed OP No.3000/08 before the Sub Court, Thrissur, challenging his dismissal from service as illegal. While the bank had issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act through their Deputy Manager, Regional Office, Sterling Road, Changanasseri, he challenged the same before this Court by filing Writ Petition(C) No.9619/06. On 1.8.2006, the 10th accused filed a counter affidavit in the writ petition, representing the South Indian Bank Limited. On the basis of some averments in the counter affidavit, the first respondent herein filed Annexure A complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thrissur, where he had stated as follows :

(3.) The complainant was examined and one witness was also examined as CWs 1 and 2. After considering the evidence on record, the Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance of the case against all the accused persons, including the present petitioners under Section 500 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code as CC No.45/10 and summons was issued to the petitioners and other accused persons. Even if the entire allegations are accepted on face value, there was no offence made out against the petitioners as the first petitioner is a bank and other petitioners are only the Directors of the bank, no personal imputation can be made against them for the acts alleged to have been committed by accused Nos.10 and 11. Even as per the allegations in the complaint, there is nothing mentioned about the role of accused Nos.1 to 9 in filing the counter affidavit, containing the alleged defamatory statement. It cannot be said that even assuming that such an allegation is made, it will not amount to defamation as it is only a reiteration of facts and nothing more. It is an abuse of the process of court to proceed with the complaint as against the petitioners and so, they pray for quashing the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code. Hence the petition.