VARSHABEN DEVENEDRABHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJRAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, trustees and office bearers of a School, have invoked the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with the prayer of quashing Criminal Case No.10322 of 1995 alleging offences punishable under Sections 500 and 506(1) read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The main allegations in the complaint are to the effect that the complainant was serving as a teacher, employed in the kindergarten run by the petitioners. It is alleged that petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were having a grudge against her and were insisting upon the complainant submitting resignation on the basis of the allegations that the complainant did not know anything and was very harsh on the young pupils. Such derogatory statements were being made in presence of other teachers and parents of the pupils, according to the allegations. While discharging the complainant from service, defamatory statements are alleged to have been made in the order of termination dated 01.02.1995 wherein it is alleged in writing that the complainant was not properly behaving with the parents and she was imposing corporal punishment on the pupils. When the complainant asked for explanation for making such allegations, she was asked whether she attended the school for teaching or flirting, and she was told that it was not a "fashion parade", according to the allegations. It is further alleged that her estimation has been ruined on account of termination from service and as the news of the termination of her service have also been published in the dailies, she was defamed. It is further alleged that the petitioners had threatened her on telephone for obtaining her resignation.

(2.) Learned counsel for the respondent, original complainant, appears to have constantly not attended this matter and today nobody is present for the original complainant, nor is a mention made on behalf of her learned advocate.

(3.) Learned counsel Mr.A.D.Shah, appearing for the applicants, submitted that the complaint as well as the statement recorded thereunder on 19.09.1995 were absolutely vague and only calculated to drag the petitioners to the criminal court with a view to take revenge for terminating the service of the complainant on valid grounds. He submitted that the order dated 01.02.1995 to terminate her service from 30.04.1995 clearly stated the ground of unsatisfactory record of service and that private communication addressed to the complainant herself could not be the basis of a complaint for defamation. He also submitted that the absence of details about when and whether and by whom and in whose presence the alleged defamatory words were told to the complainant or how and by whom she was threatened on the telephone to submit her resignation, even after termination of service, clearly shows that ex-facie, the complaint was concocted with an ulterior motive and could never result into conviction of any of the accused persons. On that basis, he submitted that the complaint and the order thereon to issue summons being apparently an abuse of the process of Court, they were required to be quashed in the interest of justice.