NANDAGOPAL YADAV Vs. UDAI PRATAP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed a private complaint for the offence under Sec. 500 IPC against the respondents herein before the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in C.M.P.No.718 of 2017. The Trial Court by order dtd. 23/5/2017 dismissed the complaint under Sec. 203 Cr.P.C. since no offence made out. Against which, the present revision petition is filed.

(2.) The respondents failed to appear before this Court, private notice sent was also returned with an endorsement 'unclaimed' and the name of the respondents printed in the cause list. Since the case is pending from the year 2017 for the service of notice and all the efforts went in vein, this Court appointed Mr.R.Ashwin Kumar, as Legal Aid Counsel for the respondents by order dtd. 11/4/2022.

(3.) The gist of the complaint is that the complainant is a businessman, doing business of general commercial export business, he is also an income tax assessee for the past 36 years, he has got good reputation and he is also Vice President of All India Yadav Maha Sabha [AIYMS] having Headquarters at Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. He was elected in the General Body meeting of the Association in the year 2007. As per the bye-law, the Annual General Body meeting to be convened once in a year, the respondents are the President and Secretary, who failed to convene the Annual General Body meeting and follow the bye law, hence the petitioner/complainant objected to the same. Offended over the same, the President and General Secretary of the AIYMS removed the petitioner from the post of Vice President of AIYMS. By removing the petitioner, they have violated the bye law. Further, the respondents caused an advertisement in the Tamil daily "Malai Malar" on 16/12/2016 informing the removal of the complainant from the post of Vice President which was read by general public and his business friends who enquired him about the same which caused embarrassment, disrepute for the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner issued a notice to the respondents on 17/12/2016 seeking the reason for giving such a public notice. Since no reply was received, the editor, reporter of Malai Malar were asked to produce the details of the person who has given the advertisement and the mode of payment which were also withheld. The publication in Malai Malar caused dis-reputation to the petitioner in the eyes of general public and his friends, thereby petitioner got defamed. The petitioner was concerned with the mismanagement of the funds of AIYMS for which he raised objection and without reasons, suspended from AIYMS. Since the public notice caused disrepute and defamed the petitioner, he filed a complaint of defamation. The petitioner examined himself as witness and produced documents. The petitioner further examined two witnesses, C.W.1 and C.W.2. The Trial Court finding no ground to presume that the accused have committed the offence, dismissed the complaint under Sec. 203 Cr.P.C.