JAI SUDERSHAN Vs. R SANKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is by the accused in C.C. No. 450/90 on the file of the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Goerge Town Madras facing trial for an offence under section 500, I.P.C. on a complaint filed by the respondent herein, invoking the inherent powers of this Court under section 482, Cr. P.C. to quash the above proceedings.

(2.) The complaint has been filed by the respondent on the allegation that after nearly 30 years of meritorious service in the Bank of Baroda in various capacities, he relinquished his office for personal reasons and, thereafter, on 20/11/1988, he attended an interview before the petitioner for a suitable placement for him. The petitioner informed him that a membership fee of Rs. 5,000.00 refundable in the event of the petitioner not being able to provide a job, had to be paid and accordingly he paid the same. Later, he found that the interview was only a hoax and he demanded the return of Rs. 5,000.00. To prevent the respondent from initiating action against the complainant for return of the above amount obtained on false and fraudulent representation, the petitioner filed 0.S. 9681/89 on the me of VII Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras against him as the 7th defendant and 8 others for a token damage of Rs. 400.00 for alleged illegal and unlawful facts in paragraph 5 of the plaint, the petitioner had alleged as follows:

(3.) Dr. J. Sudershan the petitioner herein who initially appeared as party-petitioner, and later, on enrolement as an advocate, would submit that the civil suit he has filed must be allowed to be disposed of an merits and while it is still pending there could be no parallel proceeding like a criminal complaint of the present type as laid down by the Supreme Court in Ram Sumer Pun v. State of U.P. It was further urged that it is premature to file a criminal complaint and there was time enough for the respondent, if the suit is dismissed to initiate action against the petitioner and whatever has been stated in the plaint, would be substantiated by the petitioner during trial of the civil suit and averments in the plaint are absolutely privileged and cannot form the subject matter of a prosecution under section 500, I.P.C. Reference was made to certain decisions, which I shall refer to in the course of discussion. Per contra, Thiru A. Raghunathan, learned counsel for the respondent, would urge that the averments in a plaint or court proceedings are not absolutely privileged and the passage being per se defamatory, it is for the petitioner to bring his case within anyone of the exception to section 499, I.P.C. which could be done only during trial, that the allegations made were motivated and not necessary for the purpose of the civil suit, which itself is a frivolous one and filed merely to blackmail parties, as is seen from the status of the various defendants, against each of whom highly defamatory statements are made. The learned counsel relied upon a judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in Tiruvengada Mudali v. Tripurasundari Ammal and also upon other decision.