SRICHAND GOBINDRAM NAGPAL Vs. M LAKSHMANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE allegation in the complaint filed by the complainant-respondent is set down in paragraph 14 of the complaint petition. The relevant portion is extracted here below:

(2.) THE relevant and material passage would indicate that relatives of A. 1 viz. , A. 2 to A. 4 have told him that Lala Gopikrishna Gokuldoss Agencies are dishonest scoundrels who dishonestly make money by infringing other people's trade mark. I emphasise the word 'told'. In the light of the definition in Sections 107 and 108, IPC, I am unable to see how the statement, attributed by A. 1 against A. 2 to A. 4 would constitute abetment of the offence of defamation within the meaning of Section 109, IPC I do not find any of the constituent elements in proof of the offence of abetment. The learned Counsel for the complainant-respondent cites before me the ruling in,: R. P. Kapur v. State of Punjab for the purpose of contending that accused 2, 3 and 4, the petitioners herein, cannot approach this Court Under Section 561-A when the present criminal proceedings have reached the stage of Section 252 (1 ). In my view to permit the continuance of these criminal proceedings wherein A. 2 to A. 4 have been arraigned of such an unsubstantial and baseless averment in the complaint, would be a gross abuse of the process of the court. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held in the case already adverted to that where the allegations in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; in such cases no question of appreciating evidence arises; it is a matter merely of looking at the complaint or the first information report to decide whether the offence alleged is disclosed or not. In my view, the accusation found in the complaint against A. 2 to A. 4 does not constitute only offence much less the offence of abetment Under Section 109 read with Section 500, IPC It is, in my view, iust and fa. I. R. that the inherent jurisdiction of this Court Under Section 561-A is invoked for quashing the criminal proceedings against A. 2 to A. 4 Accordingly I quash the present proceedings, against A. 2 to A. 4.