PARVEEN GUPTA Vs. ARUN PODDAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Applicant-Parveen Gupta has filed this application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C., 1973 seeking special leave to appeal.

(2.) Briefly stated, facts of the case are that complainant-Parveen Gupta had brought a criminal complaint under Section 500 IPC read with Section 34 IPC against Arun Podder, Director, Kamal Kumar Poddar, Director, Joginder Singh, Senior Manager (Personnel and Administrator), Prabhu Lal Nandwana, General Manager (Commercial) and Rohit Poddar, Director, Poddar Tyres Ltd., VPO G.T. Road, District Ludhiana on the allegations that complainant was posted as Legal Officer in Poddar Tyres, Ludhiana in January 2002; that earlier he was practicing as an Advocate at District Court, Kurukshetra and he belongs to a reputed family; that there arose a dispute between the complainant and the accused from 4.9.1998 inasmuch as accused No. 3-Joginder Singh at the instance of accused No. 4 - Prabhu Lal manhandled the complainant and forced him to give resignation; that the complainant had lodged his protest in writing before the police; that the matter was still pending before Superintendent of Police, City 1, Ludhiana; that on 24.1.2009 Shalini Gupta wife of Vipin Gupta, brother of complainant expired at Ludhiana and her dead body was brought to Kurukshetra for cremation; that all the relatives, family members and friends had assembled there; that family members of the complainant were mourning the death of the deceased for 13 days; that the complainant was at Kurukshetra in that connection, though, his residence was at Sahnewal, which was very much within the knowledge of the accused. However, all the accused knowingly and intentionally and in collusion of each other with a view to defame and humiliate the complainant and to counter the action of complainant in reporting the matter to police got published a public notice in Punjab Kesari, Daily Newspaper dated 28.1.2009 specifically in Kurukshetra edition which is as under:

(3.) The accused had served the termination letter to the complainant at his residence at Sahnewal through registered post, which was received by the son of the complainant on 30.1.2009 with some dues - through cheque. However, the entire dues of the complainant have yet been cleared. Hence, the public notice in the newspaper dated 28.1.2009 was required. The accused knowingly and intentionally with a view to spoil the future of the complainant and to block the further employment opportunities for the complainant, in other corporate houses has got published the notice. The accused without any requirement published the photograph of the complainant in a defamatory manner. The complainant is in possession of any property and documents of the accused but the accused in the defamatory manner got mentioned in the publication, "He has also deposited the company's property and files, documents which are in his possession. The public is intimated through this notice that company will be responsible for his act and conduct in future." The accused has projected complainant as a cheater through these defamatory words used against him. This publication is defamatory-in-nature.