XAVIER POLLAYIL Vs. C.H.CHANDRA BHANU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Crl.M.C is filed by the accused in C.C.No.892/2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Cherthala for quashing all further proceedings in the said Calendar Case as against him. The said Calendar Case was registered based on a private complaint submitted by the 1st respondent alleging offences punishable under Sec. 120-B and 500 r/w. Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Annexure A1 is the complaint and cognizance thereon was taken by the learned Magistrate.

(2.) Initially, the complaint was submitted against two persons. However, cognizance was taken only against the 1 st accused, the petitioner herein, and no cognizance was taken against the 2nd accused. The allegations made in Annexure A1 are as follows: The complainant is a practicing lawyer of Cherthala Bar with 26 years of experience and a member of a reputed family. He was a member of the Rotary Club of Cherthala town. He, along with Advocate K.Premkumar, V.R.Sangeeth and K.S.Manoj, were illegally terminated from the membership of Rotary Club of Cherthala town. Challenging the said termination, they filed a suit as plaintiffs before the Munsiff Court, Cherthala, which was numbered as O.S.No.189/2010. The 1st accused, the petitioner herein, was the Secretary of the Rotary Club at the relevant time. Along with the suit, an interlocutory application was filed seeking an interim injunction, and on the date of filing the said suit itself, the Munsiff Court passed an interim order restraining the respondent Club therein from prohibiting the participation of the plaintiffs in the meetings of the Club. Certain other I.A.s were also filed. I.A.No.1380/2010 was filed to restrain the Club from changing the venue of the meetings from its usual place of meeting. Yet another interlocutory application, as I.A.No.2767/2010, was filed for a direction to place the attendance book in the meeting hall and not to prevent the plaintiffs in the suit from signing in the attendance book. The petitioner/1st accused filed counter affidavits to I.A.No.1380/2010 and I.A.No.2767/2010, wherein certain objectionable and defamatory imputations were made against the complainant and three others. The relevant statement in the counter affidavit filed in I.A.No.1380/2010 reads as follows:

(3.) As mentioned above, the cognizance thereon was taken by the learned Magistrate as against the petitioner alone. This Crl.M.C. is filed in such circumstances challenging all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure A1 complaint.