High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2014-04-02Petition dismissed on merits; inherent jurisdic...

Goodwill Hire Purchase Chits and Finance Pvt. Ltd. v. Paul C Joseph and State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC.No. 1268 of 2012

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. D. Rajan
Judgment Date: 2014-04-02
Court Decision / Holding: The High Court refused to quash the complaint under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It held that a prima facie case has been made out against the petitioners, and since an in-depth evidentiary evaluation is not permissible in a Section 482 inquiry, the petition is dismissed.
Final Disposition: Petition dismissed on merits; inherent jurisdiction under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. not exercised to quash Annexure-A and CC 1551/2011; proceedings to continue.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Goodwill Hire Purchase Chits and Finance Pvt. Ltd.

Respondents

Paul C Joseph
State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri P. Vijaya Bhanu (Sr.)
• Sri M. Revikrishnan

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri G. Sreekumar (Chelur)
• Sri K. Ravi (Pariyarath)
• Sri Reji Joseph (Public Prosecutor)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Criminal Misc. Case (Crl.MC.No.1268 of 2012) challenges Annexure-A, the complaint filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur, under Section 500 IPC for defamation. The petitioner-company contends that the allegations in Annexure-A are false and amount to defamation, and seeks invocation of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the complaint and the proceedings in C.C.No.1551/2011. The underlying dispute arises from Civil EAs (E.A.No.1982/2010, 2001/2010, 1981/2010) in which the petitioners allegedly made defamatory statements while objecting to certain matters in the Munsiff Court, Thrissur. The complainant, a long-practising lawyer who was Chairman of the company, claims that the statements were defamatory per se and intended to damage his reputation. The petitioners argue they spoke truthfully in good faith before a court and that such statements, even if critical, cannot constitute defamation. The court cites Monica Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2008) 8 SCC 781 and State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal (1992) to emphasize that the inherent jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly and only when justified. On the facts, the court finds a prima facie case and, rejecting the petition, dismisses it, allowing the criminal proceedings to continue and holding that the petition is not a suitable vehicle to quash the complaint at this stage.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 Cr.P.C.Section 500 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution (Monica Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2008) 8 SCC 781
Quashing of criminal proceedings at the threshold requires that the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable or otherwise unsustainable (State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal, 1992 SCC (Crl) 426)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submitted that no defamatory matter was published; they filed only written objections in the EAs and that the facts asserted—such as alleged misappropriation by the complainant as Chairman—are true and stated in good faith before the Court. They contended that truthful statements made in good faith cannot amount to defamation and urged that, lacking a prima facie case, the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised to quash Annexure-A and CC No.1551/2011.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that the complaint discloses defamatory material arising from actions taken in the course of civil proceedings and the objections themselves contain defamatory facts. They argued that misappropriation allegations and other defamatory statements, especially given the complainant’s position as a senior lawyer and company chairman, warrant continuation of the proceedings unless the High Court finds no prima facie case. The court, however, ultimately held that a prima facie case exists and that the matter requires full trial rather than quashing at this stage.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Monica Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh	[(2008) 8 SCC 781]	Positive	Cited to support that inherent jurisdiction under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised sparingly and with caution.
State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal	[1992 SCC (Crl) 426]	Positive	Cited to delineate the test for quashing where allegations are absurd or inherently improbable.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Goodwill Hire Purchase Chits and Finance Pvt. Ltd. v. Paul C Joseph and State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN** ## **WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2014/12TH CHAITHRA, 1936** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1268 of 2012** ## **----------------------------------** ## **AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC 1551/2011 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II,THRISSUR** ## **--------------** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:** ## **-------------------------------------** **1. GOODWILL HIRE PURCHASE CHITS AND FINANCE PVT. LTD., CHETTIYANGADI JUNCTION, THRISSUR,** **REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN N.L. VARGHESE.** **S/O. LONAPPAN, NAYANGARA HOUSE, NELLANGARA DESOM, NETTISSERI VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK.** **BY ADVS.SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.) SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:** **-----------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. PAUL C JOSEPH** - **ADVOCATE, S/O.JOSEPH, CHIRAMBAN HOUSE, FATHIMA NAGAR, CHEMBUKAVU VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK - 680 013.** **2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** ## **R1 BY ADVS. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.REJI JOSEPH** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-04-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **PJ** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1268 of 2012** ## **----------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES** **----------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE A: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN C.C.NO.1551/2011 OF THE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-II, THRISSUR.** **ANNEXURE B: COPY OF THE E.A.NO.2001/2010 IN EP.NO.632/2009 IN OS.NO.1566/2000 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR.** **ANNEXURE C: COPY OF THE EA.NO.1981/2010 IN EP.NO.627/2009 IN OS.NO.1617/2000 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR.** **ANNEXURE D: COPY OF THE EA.NO.1982/2010 IN EP.NO.638/2009 IN OS.NO.3064/1999 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR** **ANNEXURE E: COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 30/10/2009 SENT TO 1ST RESPONDENT BY 1ST PETITIONER REQUIRING TO PAY BACK THE DECREED AMOUNT IN OS.NO.97/2004 RECEIVED BY 1ST RESPONDENT** **ANNEXURE F: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS.NO.1301/2009 OF THE COURT OF SUBORDINATE JUDGE, THRISSUR.** **ANNEXURE G: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS.NO.1115/2011 OF SUB COURT, THRISSUR** **ANNEXURE H: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS.NO.2759/2011 OF SUB COURT, THRISSUR.** **RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURE** **----------------------------------------** **NIL.** ## **/ TRUE COPY /** ## **P.S. TO JUDGE** **PJ** ## **P.D. RAJAN, J.** ------------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.1268 of 2012 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 2[nd] day of April, 2014 ## **ORDER** This is a petition filed u/s.482 Cr.P.C. to quash Annexure-A complaint filed before Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thrissur for offence punishable u/s.500 IPC. The petitioners are the accused in the above case, which was filed by the 1[st] respondent. After getting Annexure-A complaint, process was issued against the petitioners. According to the petitioners, the allegations made in Annexure-A complaint are false. Hence, the petitioners approached this Court with this petition to invoke the inherent jurisdiction. 2. The allegation of the 1[st] respondent in the complaint was that in E.A.Nos.1982/2010, 2001/2010 and 1981/2010, in civil suits pending before the Munsiff Court, Crl.M.C.1268/12 2 Thrissur, the petitioners had filed objection. In that objection, they mentioned defamatory facts in order to defame the 1[st] respondent among colleagues, public and judicial officers. The 1[st] respondent is a practising lawyer for the last 24 years. Hence, the allegation made against the 1[st] respondent is per se defamatory. In the circumstances, he approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thrissur with the above complaint. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that no defamatory matters were published by the petitioners and they filed only written objection before Court. He contended that while the 1[st] respondent was the Chairman of the disputed company, he misappropriated huge amount from the Company. For that, action is pending against him. Such facts were mentioned in the written objection, which is a truth. The learned counsel further contended that when a fact is mentioned in good faith before Court, that will not come Crl.M.C.1268/12 3 under defamation. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, prima facie case is not made out against the petitioners. Hence, he prays to quash Anneuxre-A complaint and further proceedings in C.C.No.1551/2011. 4. Now the question that arises for consideration is whether Annexure-A complaint can be quashed invoking inherent jurisdiction. According to Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court can invoke inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. While exercising such jurisdiction, the High Court would examine whether prima facie case is made out in a case. The High Court cannot conduct an enquiry with regard to the offence in question alleged by the defacto complainant. In _**Monica Kumar**_ v. _**State of Uttar Pradesh**_ [(2008) 8 SCC 781] held that inherent jurisdiction has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. Apex Court in Crl.M.C.1268/12 4 ## _**State of Haryana**_ V. _**Bhajanlal**_ , [1992 SCC (Crl) 426] pointed out that: “where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, the proceedings are liable to be quashed”. 5. The facts and circumstances of the case show that prima faice case is made out against the petitioners. In the complaint, the 1[st] respondent's allegation was that while the petitioners were submitting written objection in the E.A, they submitted written defamatory facts in the objection. The petitioners contended that there was misappropriation of funds, while the 1[st] respondent was the Chairman of the Company. Annexures-F and G are the copies of plaint for recovery of those amount. Even though the petitioners contended so, no materials have been produced before this Court to show that the Company conducted an audit and in that audit, the total amount misappropriated by the 1[st] Crl.M.C.1268/12 5 respondent was detected and in support of that detection, they made such statements in the trial Court. If that be the position, it is a matter of evidence. Therefore, I cannot embark upon that evidence in dispute for the satisfaction of making a prima facie case. The available materials furnished by the 1[st] respondent show that prima facie case is made out against the petitioners. If that be the position, this is not a fit case to invoke the inherent jurisdiction u/s.482 Cr.P.C. Therefore, there is no merit in this petition and it is dismissed accordingly. **P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE.** acd Crl.M.C.1268/12 6 Crl.M.C.1268/12 7