J V GANATRA Vs. RAMESHCHANDRA NATHALAL MACHCHHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "Whether on the presentation of a cheque drawn by a person no less than an Account-holder himself, if the same is dishonoured by the Bank with an endorsement 'Refer to drawer' despite the availability of sufficient balance in the account to honour the same, the said act of 'Refer to drawer' can be said to be an offence of defamation lowering the esteem of the drawer of the cheque in the eyes of the drawee, in particular, and the person who went to encash the same, and member of the public in general, who came to know about the same?" This in short, is the important question which arises for consideration in the context and background of the following facts.

(2.) To state few relevant facts as far as they are necessary to decide the question raised above respondent No. 1-Rameshchandra Nathalal Machchhar. partner of Messrs J. P. Fabrics, Jetpur, filed a Criminal Complaint before the learned J.M.F.C., Jetpur, being Criminal Case No. 1208 of 1990 against the petitioner J. V. Ganatra, Manager, Central Bank of India at Jetpur and three other superior Bank officers at other stations, inter alia alleging that the said Bank had refused to honour various cheques presented to it at Jetpur, despite there being sufficient balance in his account. It is the case of the complainant that on as many as three different dates, as stated in detail in the complaint itself, he presented three different cheques, two of which were sent alongwith Accountant (Mehtaji) for the encashment of the same which were repeatedly dishonoured with an endorsement 'Refer to the drawer'. This unfortunate incident of dishonouring cheques was brought to the notice of the higher-officers, viz., (1) The Zonal Manager, Central Bank of India, Ahmedabad, (2) The Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Rajkot and (3) The General Manager, Central Bank of India, Bombay by writing them separate registered letters. Thereafter, another notice was also sent demanding apology for defaming the complainant. Despite this correspondence, since the superior officers refused to pay any heed, the complainant was constrained to file a complaint against the petitioner and three other Bank Officers, as stated above, for the alleged offence punishable under Secs. 500, 34 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, wherein on the basis of the same, the learned J.M.F.C. by an order dated 24-9-1990 issued process, giving rise to the present application for quashing the same.

(3.) Mr. R. C. Jani, the learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that merely because the cheques were returned with an endorsement 'Refer to the drawer', the same does not amount to the defamation within the meaning under Secs. 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code. Mr. Jani further submitted that the endorsement to the effect 'Refer to drawer' in absence of criminal intent cannot be said to have constituted any offence of defamation, and when that is precisely so, there was indeed no question of issuing the process. In this view of the matter, issuance of the process being the patent abuse of the process of law, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.