LAWS(BOM)-1999-9-74

VIJAY VISHWANATH KUVALEKAR Vs. SURESH RAGHUNATHRAO KALKUNDRIKAR

Decided On September 14, 1999
VIJAY VISHWANATH KUVALEKAR Appellant
V/S
SURESH RAGHUNATHRAO KALKUNDRIKAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question which arises in this petition is whether a son can be said to be an 'aggrieved' person within the meaning of section 199 of Cr. P. C. and, therefore, competent to file a complaint for the offence of defamation under section 500 of I. P. C. for the alleged defamation of his father who was the sole trustee of Dutta Mandir situated in village Ashti in District Pune.

(2.) THIS application is filed for quashing the process issued by JMFC, A/c Court, Pune in Criminal Case No. 1867 of 1989 in the complaint filed by the respondent No. 1 for offence under section 500 of I. P. C. in respect of the news item published in "daily Sakal" a newspaper in Marathi, on 21st May 1989, under the inherent powers of this Court under section 482 of Cr. P. C. and under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) THE brief facts giving the backdrop of the present petition can be stated as follows: At Village Ashti, there is a temple called Dutta Temple. It is registered as a Trust with the Charity Commissioner, Aurangabad. The father of the complainant-respondent No. 1 was the sole trustee of the said temple. The villagers of Ashti had given a written complaint/application to the Charity Commissioner, Aurangabad making several allegations against the said Trustee. A copy of the said complaint/application is annexed at Exhibit "d" to the petition. The allegations made against the said Trustee in that application were reported in Marathi newspaper "daily Sakal" dated 21st May, 1989. The petitioner is the Editor of that newspaper who was arraigned as accused No. 1 in the complaint. Thereafter the said Trustee issued his advocate's notice dated 24-7-89 to the petitioner in respect of the said news item which was replied to by the petitioner by his reply dated 4-8-89, a copy whereof is annexed as Exhibit "e" to the petition. In the said reply, the petitioner has denied the allegations made in the notice and denied that the said news item was published intentionally in order to lower or harm the reputation of the Trustee or that it contained false allegations. Thereafter a private complaint came to be filed in the Magistrate's Court on 9-11-89, being Criminal Case No. 1867 of 1989, by the respondent No. 1 who is the son of the said Trustee. After the complaint was filed, the learned Magistrate issued the process on 27-11-1989. The order issuing process was challenged by the petitioner in the Sessions Court, Pune by filing Criminal Revision Application No. 175/90. The learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, who heard the criminal revision application, dismissed the same by his judgment and order dated 7-5-92 upholding the order issuing process on the ground that the allegations were prima facie defamatory and that the complainant being the son and the disciple of his father Raghunathrao Kalkundrikar i. e. the sole trustee was an aggrieved person and, therefore, competent to sue the petitioner for defamation.