IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 30 of 2008 Decided on: 17.3.2009. _________________________________________________ J.R. Verma and Others. …….. Petitioners. Versus M.K. Bassi …….. Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ? Yes. For the petitioners :Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent :Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocate with Mr. Rajnish K.Lal, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J (oral). The petitioners have assailed the order of their summoning in a complaint case No.83-1 of 2007, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. In brief, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the respondent is a Secretary of “M/s Aekta Cooperative House Building Society Limited, Una”. It is registered with the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Una. The Society aforesaid is engaged in the business of running a hotel named “Suvidha Place”. It _______________________________________________ Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ?.Yes. - 2 - has a Restaurant, Bar and Banquet. For the proper running of the business of the hotel, the said Society had a dealing with the ‘Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Main Branch Office at Una’, from where the complainant had raised various types of loans. It was contended in the complaint that the Society was regular in repaying the different loans advanced to it and vide letter dated 24.1.2007, the aforesaid Bank had conveyed the balance to the tune of Rs.21,31,810/- only due towards them. The petitioners herein are the employees of the aforesaid Bank, who were working in the capacity of General Manager, Zonal Manager, Senior Manager and Branch Manager. It is alleged against them that with the malafide intention, they got published the news item in the English daily “The Tribune” dated 21.02.2007 with the heading “Kangra Central Cooperative Bank had debt of Rs.12 crores showing the outstanding debt in the name of the complainant to the tune of Rs.37.05 lacs” and in the another daily Hindi newspaper, “The Punjab Kesari” published the notice on 10.3.2007, wherein the outstanding balance shown to the tune of Rs.38,92,599/- as on 30.11.2006 against the complainant’s Society and this news item contained even some more defamatory remarks, which tarnished the image of the complainant and his business concern. The complainant alleged that - 3 - he felt humiliated in the friends circle, relations and the customers, thus, prayed to punish the accused- petitioners. The preliminary evidence was recorded by the learned trial court and on consideration of the matter, found sufficient material to proceed against the petitioners under Section 500 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and by the impugned order, they were summoned as accused, which has been assailed in this petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully examined the record of the case. The news item in the English daily “The Tribune” was published by the Tribune News Service. There is no reference either of the petitioner or any of the Bank spokesman, with respect to the non-recovery of the loan from the Society of the complainant. In other words, the petitioner could not be connected with the publishing of the news item in any way. Insofar as the another news paper “The Punjab Kesari” is concerned, the demand notice on behalf of the Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited from the Head Office Dharamshala was published by its Authorized Officer under “The Securitization Reconstruction of the Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interests Act, 2002”, in exercise - 4 - of powers conferred under Section 13(2) read with Rule (3) of the Security Interests (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, showing the name of the borrowers, description of property and date of possession of notice and also the balance amount. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the demand notice published was contrary to the facts, firstly that Smt. Nirmal was not the President of the complainant’s Society whose name figured therein and secondly, the balance was shown as Rs.38,92,599/- against the amount of Rs.21,31,810/- conveyed to them earlier, which damaged their reputation in their circle. If the contention of the complainant is admitted to be correct with respect to the averments made in the notice published in Hindi daily “Punjab Kesari”, aforesaid, even then the petitioners can not be held responsible for publishing the said notice, as it was published by the Authorized Officer of the Bank and there is nothing on record to show that any of the petitioner was the Authorized Officer under the Act aforesaid, who had malafidely published the notice. Otherwise also, the said notice did not contain any defamatory words. If the notice was incorrect, the statutory remedy of appeal could have been availed under the Statute, but in any case, it cannot be said to be an act of defaming the complainant by the petitioners. - 5 - Therefore, the issuance of the process against the petitioners- accused under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code is an abuse of process, which cannot be allowed to sustain, thus the impugned order dated 1.3.2008 is quashed and set-aside. Resultantly, the complaint against the petitioner stands dismissed. March 17, 2009. (Surinder Singh), (Pds) Judge.