LAWS(BOM)-2010-6-6

VINOD Vs. SUNIL

Decided On June 09, 2010
VINOD S/O JAGAMMATH DUTONDE Appellant
V/S
SUNIL S/O NAMDEO SHEGOKAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is directed against the judgment rendered on 15-10-2007 in Criminal Revision No. 62 of 2005 confirming the order of issuance of process dated 12-4-2005 in Summary Criminal Case No. 243 of 2005 issuing the process against the applicant under section 500 of Indian Penal Code.

(2.) In support of application, Mr. Bhide learned counsel for the applicant argued that a private criminal complaint was filed by respondent No. 2. against the applicant for his alleged defamation only on the ground that a criminal case was filed against the present respondent by the State at the instance of the applicant-complainant, which is pending in the competent Court and the allegations made in the said charge-sheet are defamatory in nature. Mr. Bhide then argued that the respondent placed reliance on the order dated 18-12-2004 granting anticipatory bail in Criminal Application No. 316 of 2004 made by the Sessions Judge, Buldana which had observed in the said order that the dispute appears to be of civil nature and therefore order granting anticipatory bail was confirmed. The counsel then argued that it is admitted position that the said criminal case under section 420 and 468 of Indian Penal Code against respondent is pending in the competent Court and yet there is no adjudication about the allegations in the charge-sheet made against the respondent, and thus there was no occasion for the respondent to allege that the averments in the charge-sheet were defamatory in nature and file private complaint in the criminal Court. There is no other ground in the complaint. Mr. Bhide then argued that the complaint in the absence of adjudication by the competent criminal Court would not be maintainable. He, therefore, prayed for setting aside the impugned order and quashing the criminal case. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the decision in Satya Narayan Mohapatra vs. State of Orissa, 2004 CrLJ 742.

(3.) Per contra, Mr. Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the respondent, vehemently opposed the application and argued that the revisional Court has made arrangement that is both the cases, namely criminal case under section 420 and 468 of Indian Penal Code against the respondent and the private criminal complaint case filed by respondent No. 2 against the applicant for defamation have been ordered to be heard together and there is no need for this Court to interfere with the said revisional order. He then argued that the allegations are per se defamatory and the case under section 500 of Indian Penal Code would definitely lie. He relied on the decision of apex Court in MA. Rumugam vs. Kittu @ Krishna Moorthy, 2009 1 SCC 101.