HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.324 OF 2007 DATE:25.01.2010 Between: Sri M. Balakarishna and 10 others …… Petitioners. And: M/s. Saumya Medical Care & Media Ltd., (formerly known as Saumya Medicare International Ltd.) rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director and another …..Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.324 OF 2007 ORDER: This petition is filed by the accused Nos.1 to 11 under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing proceedings in C.C.No.444 of 2006 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Mangalagiri relating to offence punishable under Section 500/34 I.P.C. A-1 to A-11 are officers in Housing and Urban Development Corporation Limited (in short, HUDCO). A-1 is Executive Director in Regional Office of HUDCO at Hyderabad. A-2 is Senior Law Officer in Regional Office of HUDCO at Bangalore. A-3 is Branch Incharge of HUDCO at Visakhapatnam. A-4 is Senior Finance Officer of Regional Office of HUDCO at Hyderabad. A-5 is the then Chairman and Managing Director of HUDCO at New Delhi. A-6 is Director (Finance) of HUDCO at New Delhi. A- 7 is Executive Director (Law), HUDCO at New Delhi. A-8 is Director of HUDCO at New Delhi. A-9 is Director of HUDCO at New Delhi. A-10 is Deputy Chief (Finance), HUDCO in Regional Office at Hyderabad. A-11 is Senior Law Officer of HUDCO in Regional Office at Hyderabad. There is no dispute that the defacto complainant who is the 1st respondent borrowed money from HUDCO and the loan is repayable in instalments. There is no dispute that the 1st respondent gave undated blank cheques or post dated filled up cheques for repayment of instalments of loan. There is no further dispute that HUDCO filed two criminal cases under Sections 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act against the 1st respondent in C.C.Nos.272 of 2002 and C.C.No.770 of 2002 and those criminal cases were pending for trial as on 31.12.2003. Subsequently those criminal cases are stated to have been dismissed by the criminal court on 17.10.2006. While so, when HUDCO was going for public issue of bonds, HUDCO made publication in internet showing complaint cases for dishonour of cheques filed by HUDCO under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act as on 31.12.2003 against various loanees and others. The said publication gave list of 90 cases filed by HUDCO against various loanees including the 1st respondent. Items 2 and 3 of the said list relate to cases pending against the 1st respondent as on 31.12.2003. Alleging that the said publication has affected reputation of the 1st respondent resulting in suppliers stopping supplies of medicines, equipment etc., and doctors leaving away the 1st respondent institution, the 1st respondent filed private complaint in the lower court against A-1 to A-11 alleging offence punishable under Section 500/34 I.P.C. It is contended by the 1st respondent that when one of the officials of HUDCO wanted bribe for advancing loan to the 1st respondent, report was given to Anti Corruption Bureau and the said official of HUDCO was trapped and prosecuted for the same and that keeping the said motive in mind, officials of HUDCO started harassing the 1st respondent in many ways and finally made the impugned publication tarnishing reputation of the 1st respondent. On the other hand, it is contended for the petitioners that the said publication of pending cases as on 31.12.2003 was made by HUDCO in discharge of its statutory obligation to publish the list as per guidelines of SEBI (Securities and Exchange Board of India) and that there is nothing improper or no false information is contained in the said publication and that it was not intended to harm reputation of the 1st respondent or other loanees mentioned in it. The publication made in internet is a factually true statement without any distortions or insinuations against anybody. HUDCO merely published name of loanee, number of criminal case and stage of criminal case as on 31.12.2003. As pointed out earlier, there is no dispute that C.C.Nos.272 of 2002 and 770 of 2002 were pending against the 1st respondent as on 31.12.2003 and they were posted for trial. It may be a fact that subsequently those cases were dismissed by the criminal court on 17.10.2006. But by 31.12.2003, when the publication was made, those cases were posted for trial. Thus as a matter of fact, the publication contained only a true statement and no part of the said statement is false. Simply because the said publication continued even after 17.10.2006 when the criminal cases were dismissed, it cannot be said that HUDCO made any false statement in continuing the publication in internet. Private complaint in the lower court was filed on 06.12.2006. When a publication is made in a news paper or a magazine, it remains on paper until the paper or magazine is physically destroyed. Similarly when a publication is made in internet, it continues to be there in internet till the same is withdrawn. The continued publication did not change the original version to the effect that criminal cases are pending even after 17.10.2006. The publication only says that those cases were pending as on 31.12.2003 and nothing more than that. Further, there is no signatory for the said publication in the internet. It was published by HUDCO as such. None of A-1 to A-11 is a signatory to the said publication. In the absence of any personal publication by any of A-1 to A-11, complicity of A-1 to A-11 in making the publication cannot be inferred. None of A-1 to A-11 being a party to the publication in person, impleading of A-1 to A-11 in the criminal case is nothing but abuse of process of law. Nextly, HUDCO made the publication of list in discharge of its statutory obligation under para 5.6A and 6.11.1 of S.E.B.I., guidelines, rules and regulations relating to public issue of bonds. Thus, viewed from any angle, none of the petitioners who are A-1 to A-11 can be said to have defamed the 1st respondent by the impugned publication of list of complaints filed by HUDCO under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. Therefore, it is a fit case for quashing proceedings in the pending cases in the lower court. In the result, the petition is allowed quashing proceedings in C.C.No.444 of 2006 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Managalagiri. _________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Date: 25.01.2010. Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.324 OF 2007 DATE:25.01.2010 Gk.