GEORGE BRANCH MANAGER Vs. S KANNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the accused in a private complaint in S.T.C. No. 150 of 2007 pending on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. II, Ulundurpet, filed by the respondent, seeking prosecution of the petitioner/accused under Section 500 IPC. A perusal of the complaint would disclose that on 17.07.2003, the respondent/private complainant availed a loan from South Indian Bank Limited, in which, the petitioner/accused was employed as the Manager and the son of the respondent/complainant as well as his wife had signed as guarantors. Thereafter, on behalf of the Bank, a legal notice was issued to the respondent/complainant calling upon him to repay the dues and the complainant/respondent stated that he requires two months time. However, the Bank has chosen to file O.S. Nos. 247 and 248 of 2006 before the Court of Principal District Munsif, Ulundurpet, for recovery of the amount. It is further stated in the complaint that the complainant/respondent also agreed to pay the entire dues and accordingly, remitted Rs. 22,136/- and Rs. 23,663/- and when the complainant/respondent requested the petitioner/accused to return the documents, he has stated that since audit is going on, he was asked to come after a week to collect the documents. The petitioner/accused would state that on 09.11.2006, he along with the guarantors, viz., Kannan and Mannangatti and his wife went to the Bank for getting return of the documents and the petitioner/accused has insulted him and also abused. One week thereafter, once again, the complainant/respondent went to the Bank for getting return of documents and at this juncture, the petitioner/accused uttered a word that 'he is a cheat and nobody will grant loan to him' and also refused to return the security documents. The complainant/respondent, feeling aggrieved by the utterance of words of the petitioner/accused, has filed the abovesaid private complaint.

(2.) This Court has ordered notice to the respondent and though the respondent/complainant has been served and his name is appearing in the cause list, there is no appearance on his behalf.

(3.) Mr. Rajnish Pathiyil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused, would vehemently contend that prior to the filing of the private complaint, the respondent/complainant has sent a legal notice, dated 27.11.2006, wherein nothing has been stated about the presence of persons before whom the petitioner/accused said to have uttered/abused the words. It is further contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that as per Explanation 4 to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, no imputation is said to harm a person's reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful and in view of the early stand taken by the respondent/complainant in the legal notice, the present complaint alleging defamation is not sustainable and hence, prays for quashing of the said proceedings.