T.VIJAYAKUMAR Vs. P.JAWAHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to set aside the order in Crl.R.C.No.10 of 2021, dtd. 21/7/2022, passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, confirming the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Chengalpattu, in Crl.M.P.No.8798 of 2021, dtd. 26/10/2021.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent is a promoter carrying on his business in the name and style of M/s.Vasantham promoters in Chennai. Respondent developed a layout in S.Nos.434/1A part, 438/1A part, 438/2, 439/2, 440 part, 441/1, 442, 443, 444/3 part, 444/4, 445/1C, 445/4B, 446, 447/1, 477/2, 448, 499 in the form of residential plots from numbers 1 to 197. Respondent also executed a gift deed in favour of the Village Administrative Officer, vide document No.5296/2012, with respect to 78732.5 sq.ft. Petitioner purchased plot No.79 in S.Nos.447/2 and 448, measuring 1500 sq.ft. on 1/6/2012. The boundaries of the plots are, on the North - 21 feet broad 5th cross street, South - Park, East - common road which leads to south part of Mamandur, West - plot No.80. After purchasing the property and taking possession, petitioner came to know that the boundaries are not as per the documents. He purchased the property mainly for the reason that the Southern boundary is a Park, in reality, there was no Park. Respondent had been doing certain acts contrary to the documents, by creating new plots in the Park and surrounding areas. Therefore, petitioner gave a complaint to the Joint Director on 7/1/2021. The Joint Director sought an explanation from respondent. On behalf of respondent, one P.Jawahar sent a reply dtd. 20/4/2021 making defamatory allegations against petitioner. Therefore, petitioner filed a private complaint under Sec. 200 Cr.P.C. for the offences under Ss. 500 and 501 IPC in C.M.P.No.8798 of 2021. However, the Judicial Magistrate - I Chengalpattu, dismissed the petition under Sec. 203 Cr.P.C. Aggrieved over the dismissal of C.M.P.No.8798 of 2021, petitioner filed a criminal revision petition in Crl.R.C.No.10 of 2021 before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu and the same also came to be dismissed.

(3.) It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complaint allegations clearly make out a case of defamation against respondent. The learned Judge, without properly understanding the definition of Sec. 499 IPC in proper perspective, dismissed the complaint on the reason that there was no publication of defamatory allegations. Therefore, challenging the said orders, this petition is filed.