JETU JACQUES TARU LALVANI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, the applicant/original accused has challenged the common order dated 01-12-2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal revision Application Nos. 196 of 2001 and 198 of 2001, whereby the revisions have been dismissed and the order passed by the learned j. M. F. C. directing issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 500 of indian Penal Code was confirmed.

(2.) Mr. Parsodkar, learned counsel, for the applicant contended that M/s. Wasudha Enterprises is admittedly a partnership firm and respondent No. 2 Deepak wakharia, his father Popatlal and others were the partners of the said firm. It is contended that the firm had entered into lease agreement on 18-9-1995 with accused and the amount of Rs. 30,13,920/- with interest was outstanding against the firm and, therefore, the letters dated 16-1-1998 and 16-3-1998 were addressed by the applicant/accused to the partners of the partnership firm. As the said M/s. Vasudha Enterprises failed to pay the lease rent, the partners of the Firm were called upon to make the aforesaid payment with interest and the letters were in the nature of demand notice. He contended that respondent No. 2 and his father treated the said letters as defamatory and therefore instituted private complaint before the learned J. M. F. C. which were separately numbered as Criminal complaint Case Nos. 1993 of 2001 and 1994 of 2001. Being aggrieved by the order regarding issue of process, the father of respondent No. 2 had filed an application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure in this Court which was numbered as Criminal Application No. 386 of 2002 in which an undertaking was given that the matter has been settled amicably and consequently Criminal Case No. 1993/01 has been compounded and withdrawn. On the basis of this undertaking, this Court disposed of the aforesaid Criminal Appln. No. 386/02 on 4-12-2002.

(3.) The learned Counsel contended that respondent No. 2 is the son of Popatlal and only to harass the petitioner/accused, the proceedings are continued and no prima facie case exists for continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 500 of indian Penal Code. He contended that the entire proceedings initiated by respondent no. 2 is the gross abuse of the process of the court and the same is counter blast to the complaint filed by the petitioner through his constituted attorney against the brothers, father, sister-in-law, brother-in-law and other partners of M/s. Vasudha Enterprises in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate 33rd Court, ballard Estate, Bombay and also Civil Suit bearing Summary Suit No. 4525 of 1998 for recovery of the lease amount. He contended that though the father has withdrawn the proceedings and the matter has been settled, the son wants to prosecute the complaint filed at Akola only to harass the accused and in these circumstances when no offence has been made out for the offence punishable under Section 500 of Indian Penal Code, the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in rejecting the revision application and therefore the impugned order is not sustainable in law. He contended that if the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 1994 of 2001 is allowed to continue, that would be an abuse of the process of the Court and therefore the said criminal application may kindly be quashed.