J SELVARAJ Vs. D K P VARDHARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Selvaraj preferred a private complaint against the respondents before Judicial Magistrate No. III, Coimbatore, in S.T.R. No. 1933/91 alleging that they had committed an offence punishable under Section 500 read with Section 34, I.P.C. First respondent herein was shown as A-2, while the second respondent was arrayed as A-1. The sum and substance of the complaint as can be discerned from the averments made, is that on 2-3-1991 at 11 a.m., the complainant (Petitioner) received a letter dated 26-7-1991 from the second respondent herein. Since the complainant had some eye problem, the asked his friend A. Gopal cited as witness No. 2 in the complaint, to read the contents of the said letter. The complainant was shocked and surprised to note the imputations allegedly made against him by the first respondent herein in the presence of the second respondent. The contents of the letter show that the first respondent herein had stated that the complainant was an international fraud, drunkard and a dacoit. According to the complainant, not only those imputations are false, but they had lowered his reputation in the public eye. When the letter was read, some of his subordinates in his industry were present and they commenced looking down upon him.

(2.) The complaint has cited three other witnesses, apart from A. Gopal. The complainant also discloses that the petitioner caused issue of lawyer's notice to both respondents. Even though receipt of such notice was acknowledged by the first respondent (A-2), he did not choose to send a reply, while the other accused (A-1/second respondent) sent a reply. After recording the sworn statement of the petitioner, learned Magistrate took the complainant on file under Section 500, I.P.C. and directed issue of process to both the respondents.

(3.) At this stage, the first respondent herein (A-2) chose to prefer Crl. R.C. No. 71/91 before the First Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, contending that the issue of process has to be held to he non est, and there was no prima facie case, to proceed against him. The first revisional Court, after notice to all parties concerned, allowed the plea of the first respondent (A-2) on the ground that the prosecution depended solely on the truth or otherwise of the contents of the letter written by the second respondent (A-1). The further observation is that it was seen from the inland letter relied on by the complainant that the author of the letter is not a dependable person and there is intrinsic proof in the letter itself that the author thereof had no regard for truth. He had misused the name of the complainant and received monies by telling lies. Hence, much reliance cannot be placed on the contents on that letter, when a person had admittedly spoken lies to suit his convenience. The next ground for holding in favour of the first respondent (A-2), is that the complainant had no direct knowledge about the alleged defamatory words spoken to by A-2. In other words, on hearsay material, a complaint could not be taken cognizance of. Thereafter, the learned Sessions Judge has observed that it appeared to him that the complainant, with the active assistance of the first accused, was trying to abuse the process of law. Complainant, ostensibly aggrieved at the verdict of the First Additional Sessions Judge, has chosen to invoke the revisional powers of this Court.