S RAJAGOPALAN Vs. SEVALAYA MANAGING TRUSTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners herein, who are the accused in case pending in C.C. No. 2489 of 2008 on the file of the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai seek to quash the proceedings.

(2.) THE petitioners herein and four others are facing prosecution for offences under Sections 292(A) read with 499 and 500 IPC in such case. THE respondent/complainant had preferred a complaint before the lower Court. THE complaint in brief is that the complainant viz., Sevalaya, a registered Charitable Trust under the Trust Act represented by its Managing Trustee V. Muralidharan, is functioning for more than 19 years at Kasuva Village. It serves as home for the poor, destitute and orphans. It also runs a free recognized unaided Higher Secondary School with a strength of about 1000 students. Its work had been lauded and it has been conferred the TCS Educational World Award in the year 2006. THE Managing Trustee of the Trust is informed to be a respectable person having high reputation for social activities. He, being a senior Manager of Tata Consultancy Services has devoted his whole life for the growth of Sevalaya. THE 1st petitioner/accused, a foreign national of Indian origin is one of the complainant's donors and Sevalaya, believing in maintaining transparency produced all necessary accounts to him. THE 1 st petitioner introduced a person as his representative, who according to the complainant was a person of poor habits. THE complainant showed no interest in inviting him into its premises and this led to deterioration of the relationship between the complainant and the 1st petitioner. THE complainant alleges that being upset thereby the 1 st petitioner/accused lodged false and frivolous complaints before the Chief Educational Officer and District Collector and many other government agencies, both central and state. THEy were rejected by the concerned authorities and the 1st petitioner due to antagonistic feelings towards the trust and the Managing Trustee has challenged that he would close the trust and finish off the Managing Trustee by hook or crook. This, according to the complainant led to illegal and defamatory publications by E-mail, in newspapers and by way of offending wall posters. As the educational and government authorities were satisfied with the functioning and activities of the trust, the 1 st petitioner became frustrated and attempted other criminal activities to bring down the reputation of the trust and its members. It is, in this background that the complaint of defamation has been filed against the accused. THE accusations are as follows:

(3.) THOUGH the mala fides of the complainant in informing an erroneous address of the 2nd petitioner and causing the issue of non-bailable warrant against the 2nd petitioner was stressed, this Court would allow the petition for quash of the complaint against the petitioners for the following reasons: