vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1175 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1175 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1175 OF 2008 Mukund M. Goradia ... Applicant V/s. State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr.Shailesh Kantharia for Applicant Mr.P.A. Pol, APP, for Respondent-State CORAM: SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. MHATRE, J. MHATRE, J. DATED: APRIL 17, 2008 APRIL 17, 2008 APRIL 17, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The criminal application has been filed challenging the orders passed by the Special Metropolitan Magistrate, 48th Court, Andheri in Criminal Case No.9/Misc/2008 dated 18.2.2008 and the order passed by the Sessions Court in Revision Application No.225 of 2008. The applicant is aggrieved by the dismissal of his complaint u/s 500 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant claims to be a reputed builder and according to him, the accused had made false allegations against him in their complaint which was signed by 54 persons and sent to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone 8. The police called him for enquiring about the complaint which, according to the complainant, has damaged his reputation as defamatory statements have been used in the complaint. 2. Both the learned Magistrate and the Sessions : 2 : Judge have found that the allegations contained in the complaint filed by the accused do not lower the reputation of the complainant and are not defamatory. 3. Reliance is placed by the learned advocate for the petitioner on the Full Bench judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Tiruvengada Mudali v/s. Tripurasundari Anamal, AIR 1926 Madras 906; AIR 1926 Madras 906; AIR 1926 Madras 906; judgement of a learned Single Judge of Madras High Court in the case of Thangavelu Chettiar v/s. Ponnammal, 1966 1966 1966 Cri.L.J. 1149 Cri.L.J. 1149 Cri.L.J. 1149 and of a learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Nalinbhai Thakorbhai Mehta v/s. Laxmiben Gordhandas Patel & Ors., 1985 (1) 1985 (1) 1985 (1) II CRIMES 414. II CRIMES 414. II CRIMES 414. The Full Bench of the Madras High Court has taken the view that statements made in a complaint are not absoultely privileged unless they are made in good faith. In the case of Thangavelu Chettiar (supra), it has been held, on facts, that the petitioner in that case has made unnecessarily defamatory allegations without good faith. In the case of Nalinbhai Thakorbhai Mehta (supra), the Gujarat High Court has observed the view that the maker of the statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be prosecuted u/s 500 of the Indian Penal Code and the privilege under section 132 of the Indian Evidence Act is not available to him. : 3 : 4. The accused had complained of certain acts allegedly committed by the applicant / complainant as a landlord of their tenements. The Petitioner was called to the police station merely for an enquiry into the complaint. It is obvious from the statements contained in the complaint that the accused had not made any defamatory statements, much less any statements which were not in good faith. By no stretch of imagination can these be considered to be acts of defamation by the accused. In these circumstances, Criminal Application is dismissed.