1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.732 OF 2009 Usha Narayan Patankar Applicant versus Sudhir S. Gokarn and others Respondents WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.663 OF 2009 Kishor Narayan Patankar Applicant versus Prashant G. Sharma and others Respondents WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.733 OF 2009 Kishor N. Patankar Applicant versus Sudhir S. Gokarn and others Respondents Mr.Prakash Naik for applicant in all revision applications. Mr.Rajesh More, APP for State. Mr.Raymond V. Samuel with Ms.Sonal Samuel and Priscilla Samuel for respondent nos.1 and 2 in Revision Appln.No.663/2009. Mr.Amit Sheth for respondent nos.1 to 8 in Revn.Appln. Nos.732/2009 and 733/2009. CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 20th August 2011 PC : 1. Heard learned advocates for the parties. Rule. Returnable forthwith. By consent heard finally. 2 2. The three revisions are taken up together and disposed of by common order. Revision No.663 of 2009 and 733 of 2009 relate to CC No.3118/SS/2008 moved by Kishor Patankar against the builder (original accused nos.7 and 27) and society office bearers (original accused nos.3 to 10). This is to challenge an order of learned Additional Sessions Judge passed in Revision Application No.1250 of 2009 dated 10th September 2009 allowing the revision application of the respondents herein and thereby setting aside the issuance of process under section 500 read with section 34 of IPC.. 3. Revision Application No.732 of 2009 is by Smt.Usha Patankar, mother of Kishor Patankar against the members of society in Criminal Case No.3377/SS/2008 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge refused to take action against the members of the society in terms of section 500 r/w s.34 of IPC and set aside the order of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Railways Mobile Court, Adheri in the said case. 4. The parties are not at dispute about Kishor Patankar and Smt.Usha Patankar being members of the co-operative housing society and being the occupants of two flats. The property as a whole was developed under a redevelopment agreement by the builders (respondent nos.1 and 2). It is informed that the applicant Kishor Patankar was an active member in the execution of the redevelopment agreement and he was one of the signatories to the transaction. 5. There is no controversy that the notice of demand was served by the builder upon son Kishor Patankar and his mother Smt.Usha Patankar making demand of the arrears due and payable to the builder. The controversy crept in when the recovery notice issued by 3 the builder was displayed by the members of the society on the notice board. The applicants herein felt that it amounted to defamation as they did not owe any liability either to the society or to the builder. 6. Several documents were read to express each others point. Even affidavit of the builder was shown wherein he did not dispute of issuance of notices of recovery, however, also states on oath that he had settled the accounts with the mother Smt.Usha Patankar and consequently the mother withdraw the prosecution against the builder. 7. The set of documents to which reference is given, illustrate that there was some dispute relating to area and its dimensions after redevelopment. As per the agreement the builder provided additional area in the redeveloped building and as the applicants failed to pay the amount for such additional area, the builder issued recovery notice and sought to serve through the housing society. The recovery notices were sent to the society, who in turn, after passing necessary resolution decided to publish the said recovery notices on notice board. Whether such act of the society members would tantamount to defamation as defined in section 499 of IPC is the real question. Upon reading the text of the said notices coupled with language of section 499 of the IPC, it is clear that the intention of the members of the society was not of terrorizing and demoralizing the applicants or to cast any imputation by displaying the notices. At no stage it is demonstrated by the applicants that the society members desired to lever their scores against the applicants for personal vendetta or otherwise by publishing the notices on notice board. The controversy involves to disputes over accounts. The builder has already settled the dispute with the mother Smt.Usha Patankar. Now merely because the recovery notices were shown on notice board does not spell out the defamation. No specific role of society or members of 4 society is attributed by the applicants causing defamation. Therefore, issuance of process by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was not in consonance with the record and provisions of Section 499 of IPC.. The impugned order of learned Additional Sessions Judge does not call for any interference. The revision applications are dismissed. Rule discharged. (K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.)