PRAFULLA HEDGE Vs. VINEETA VAZE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition challenges the Judgment and order dated 5/5/2012 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Mapsua thereby confirming the order passed by the learned Magistrate issuing process under section 500 against the respondent. It is the case of the respondent that she gave written complaint dated 19/2/2009 to the Inspector General of Police (I.G.P, for short) against the respondent and her husband who owned a company by name 'Rajat International" which is dealing in supply of iron ore and the petitioner is also in the business of export of iron ore. The petitioner has placed the order for some 5000 tonnes of 58% fe and 10,000 tonnes of 53% iron ore and has paid advance of Rs.1.02 crore for supply of the iron ore. However, the company of the respondent did not supply the ore as per the quality order. The petitioner, therefore, lodged a written complaint with the I.G.P. against the respondent and her husband for supply of inferior quality ore and cheating the petitioner. Whether pursuant to the said complaint F.I.R was registered or not is not made clear before this Court. However, the statement made in the said written complaint is the ground to lodge the private complaint for defamation under section 499 I.P.C. before the JMFC against the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that in the written statement she had made a statement that the respondent has committed fraud when she was working with some Rajat International from where she was dismissed. This statement, as per the respondent is false and therefore she filed private complaint under section 190 of the Cr.P.C. The respondent examined herself on oath and produced documentary evidence in support of her case inter alia the learned Magistrate issued process under section 500 of the I.P.C. against the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing revision before the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge maintained the said order and dismissed the revision. Hence the petition.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner raises a question of law whether the averments in the written complaint can form the basis for filing criminal complaint under + 499 of Cr. P.C. i.e. of defamation punishable under section 500 of the I.P.C.

(3.) Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner gave complaint to the I.G.P i.e. the authority dealing with the investigation and therefore, the averments made in the complaint are to be protected and there should be impunity from search and impunity is to be given to those allegations. In support of his submissions he relied on: