S GOPALASWAMI Vs. JAYARAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present respondent Jayaraman in his capacity as the president of local Panchayat Board filed a suit in O. S. No. 390 of 1990 in the court of the District Munsif, Chidamabaram against one Kaliyan, his mother and brother and in I. A. No. 1069 of 1990 obtained an order of temporary injunction restraining them from interfering with the rights of the Panchayat over a tank, well and property in their village. THE injunction order was served on them. According to him, thereafter in violation of the injunction order, Kaliyan, his mother and brother fenced the property with'karuvai Veli'. On the public reporting against that fencing, he had the veli removed with the help of police. However, petitioner herein and the said Kaliyan preferred a complaint to the local Assistant Superintendent of Police stating that respondent Jayaraman and another felled and taken away neem and karuvai trees to the value of Rs. 36,000 in the aforesaid property. It was registered as Crime no. 183 of 1990 of Porto Novo Police Station under Secs. 447 and 379, I. P. C. against them.

(2.) THEREUPON respondent Jayaraman filed a private complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Porto Novo against the present petitioner Gopalaswami and the said Kaliyan, stating that he had been put to considerable mental agony, torture and his esteem in the eyes of the general public had been lowered and he had to suffer incalculable damage to his reputation on account of the police complaint. In view of this the present petitioner and the said Kaliyam are liable to be punished under Sec. 500, i. P. C. Learned Judicial Magistrate, Porto Novo took the complaint on file in c. C. No. 153 of 1990 and examined the witnesses produced by the said Jayaraman. In his evidence Jayaraman as P. W. 1. has stated that the present petitioner gopalaswami without properly ascertaining the truth of the allegations mentioned by Kaliyan in his complaint against him forwarded the same to the police for investigation. On this the local police registered a case and that his reputation was lowered because he was called by the police for investigation and that he had written to the Superintendent of Police to take action against the petitioner for the offence under Sec. 211, I. P. C. Now gopalaswami the first accused in C. C. No. 153 of 1990 in the Court of Judicial magistrate, Porto Novo has come forward with this application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records in that case and quash the proceedings.

(3.) THE next submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that no offence under Sec. 500, I. P. C. can be made out, since allegations are covered by Exception 8 to Sec. 499, I. P. C. is also well founded. In Ponpandian v. Chinnasamy, 1984 T. L. N. J. 435, the respondent preferred a complaint against the petitioners under Sec. 500, I. P. C, on the allegations that the petitioners prepared a complaint and obtained signatures thereto from the natives of Koozha Eral and presented the same to the Sub-Inspector of police, Ettayapuram, containing false allegations which are defamatory. According to the petitioners, the very complaint itself was an abuse of the process of court, as on the material there was nocase for trial. THE main contention of the quash petitioners was that the impugned complaint given to the police was an absolutely privileged one and as such no action could be taken under Sec. 500, I. P. C. It was contended by the respondent that under exception 8 to Sec. 499, I. P. C. the petitioners must prove good faith and this question can be considered only at the appropriate stage in the trial and the complaint cannot be quashed. Natarajan, J. has held that on the face of the allegation stated in the complaint there was no malice or ill-will attributed to the accused. So the necessity to undergo ordeal of the trial by the petitioners/accused was nothing but harassment and abuse of the process of court. And hence, the complaint was liable to be quashed. In the present case also, even as per the allegations in the complaint the overt-act attributed to the quash petitioner was that he had forwarded to the police for investigation the complaint preferred by Kaliyan. In the absence of any malice or ill-will attributed to him no offence under Sec. 500, I. P. C. is made out.