-£,. 4 "Hi' INSTH&HIGaiCCHIR'FOPJWmeATURBAT BILASPUR CR.M.r.No.3' ^ / of 2008 GRIMINAI, MI^CELLANEQCTS PETITION VVSSqSK SjEG'EaOir 48£GF THB er.P.C. _ RB I.ISfiiS i ^iiiiS py^; pi^ ISIM 3'EBaa Petltioaer Accused £.:• .^y^i ^^s^ .-' r^ •^ •^•'A^ X' '^y../'^ «p>' ^" : :S:Ut'»anoro^af\W&V):°ipa"+T^:,:,,';:|;i|>lffE9 :^a^anarayan_MaHaE^Ta^^.:^^g|gjg .S/o.^,Shrf:I.MrituyaTOay'|||||g Mahapatra, Aged about SS years,; ^ Workmg :;,^as •t;.E)y|-.^Bj Manager, State "BaiLk.^'W'.Asyi^ India, Lead! Bank OHlcei, Distt. Bodh (Orissa) R/oBagieha Sahi, Disjt. ^l Bcydll;(0rissal ; 1 Vs Res'pond^uA ConiplaittStnt Vrjiiy Ku. Agrawal S/0 Late S&cl Satyaiiarayan Agraw^l, Aged about 41 years^ ;R|/6 J-47, Cloth Mas-S^t, Pandri, Police Statil^n Moa, Distt. Ralpur f^<lj|i il's ;-;% I A3' •^^ jV% ''^1-':'<.."' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Cr. h/I.P. No. 351 of 2008 PETITIONER/ACCUSED Suryanarayan Mohapatra VERSUS Vijay Kumar Agrawal RESPONDENT Complainant Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal counsel for the petitioner. Shri Raghvendra Pradhan counsel for the respondent. PETITION UNDER SECTION 4820F THECODEOF CRIIVHNAL PROCEDURE. ORDER (19.08.2010) This petition is directed against the order dated 2.5.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur in Criminal Case No. 362/2008 taking cognizance against the petitioner in respect of an offence punishable underSection 500 ofthe Indian Penal Code. ; 2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 3.11.2007 respondenVcomplainant filed a complaint alleging that the petitioner who is working as Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Old Cuttack Branch, District Bodh, Orissa. It is alleged that father of the complainant namely late Satyanarayan Agrawal had taken a loan of Rs. 5,00,000 ort 17.11.1999 from the aforesaid branch ofthe State Bank of India but aften obtaining the loan he expired. On 8.11.2005, a recovery suit Annexure P-1 for Rs. 1,40,310 was instituted in which apart from the complainant; his brother, mother and other family members were impleaded as defendants. According to the complainant, institution of the aforesaid civil suit.in a jurisdictional Civil Court and service of summon by it to the complainant at Raipur is per se defamatory because his servant and relatives could come to know about the filing ofthe same. 3. Statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 14.12.2007 in which he had made almost similar allegation as in the complaint and stated that at Raipur he ^ is having the business of cloth and enjoying good reputation in the ared and as everybody in the market had come to know about filing of the sui1 for recovery against him, a great defamation has been caused to him. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that neither the said notice has been published nor there was an intention on the part of the petitioner to harm the complainant and simply being a Branch Manager the suit was filed by him and that he was merely a signatory to the said plaint in the capacity of Branch Manager. He submits that even Jf the complaint and the statement ofthe complainant is taken at its face value, ingredients of defamation defined under Section 499 of the Code df Criminal Procedure are not attracted to the case in hand. He submits that present is a cas< where mother of the complainant was so fair in clearing the dues of her deceased-husband but the complainant in stead of supporting the feelings of his mother has chosen to file a complaint against the petitioner. He further submits that if the complainant was so much worried about his reputation in the society, he could have deposited the entire loan amount by accepting his moral responsibility. 5. On the other hand counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. 6. What transpires from the record is that father of the respondent had taken certain loan from the State Bank of India and after doing so he expired. Thereafter, a recovery suit was filed against the complainant and his family members by the State Bank of India under the signature of the pefitioner herein in the capacity of Branch Manager of the said Branch. Thus even if the entire case of the prosecution is taken as it is, according to'the considered opinion of this Court, no defamation as defined under Section 499 of the code of Criminal Procedure appears to have been caused to the complainant. Moreover, as the notice of the suit so filed was not published anywhere, the stand of the complainant that hi^ reputation in the society would be adversely affected, appears to be baseless and the petitioner cannot be dragged into the litigation at the sweet will of the complainant. Thus the complaint and the documents K^^i;i;^^^i'.:;%^S%'1^Sc^: ^^.'^. ^^&^13ti;^:;^srs^:y:!^"':-M^-^' :M^ti^i^'iWT^;^^®^^' :i.;;n VSssgESS9SSffi'snassiE i^^^^ ^'SSS^: annexed thereto if taken into cbnsideration at their faee valu®,^do?h<a) disdQsethe cDmmission offKeoffence underSectiQn 500 IPC. ^ ^ 7. In the result, the petition is allowed. Proceedings in cFiminal Case No. 362/2008 including the orderdated 2.5.2008 passed by the Court pf Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, are hereby quashed. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge IB BIIJ