K. RENUKA Vs. V. RAJAMANICKAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Criminal revision case is filed as against the order dated 13.05.2004 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Coimbatore in C.M.P. No. 10125 of 2003 in C.C. No. 728 of 2001, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. to include two more persons as accused 2 and 3 in C.C. No. 728 of 2001 was dismissed.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case is that the petitioner was employed as an Assistant Inspector in the office of the Assistant Director, Internal Audit and she discharged her duties sincerely without giving any room for any complaint. The respondents were also working in the same office as Assistant Inspector, Deputy Inspector and Assistant Inspector respectively. Apart from this official position, the respondents are also holding the post of President and Treasurer in the Tamil Nadu Local Fund and Audit and Government Department Internal Audit Service Association, Coimbatore Unit. While so, on 19.02.2001, a notice was displayed in the notice board stating that the Association has passed a resolution against the petitoiner condemning her discharge of duties. The resolution was signed by all the three respondents. According to the petitioner, the resolution passed by the respondents is per se defamatory and thereby she was subjected to mental agony and irreparable hardship. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the complaint under Section 500 of Cr.P.C. against the respondents before the trial court.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitoiner would contend that the petitioner had filed a complaint under Section 500 of Cr.P.C. for defamation. Though originally he named all the three persons as accused in the complaint, the court below took cognisance of the complaint only as against one person, who was eventually arrayed as A-1 and framed charge only against A-1, leaving the two other persons from the purview of prosecution. There are enough evidence available for consideration of the Court below to conclude that the respondents 2 and 3 herein also have joined the first accused/first respondent herein in defaming the name and fame of the petitioner and therefore, the court below ought to have launched prosecution as against the A-2 and A-3. The reasons assigned by the court below for dismissal of the present application is that the earlier attempt made by the petitioner to challenge the order of the court below dated 20.09.2001 was affirmed by the appellate Court and therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to file the present petition under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. Thus, the trial court has not independently decided the averments contained in the petition filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. and only dismissed the petition on the ground that the Criminal Revision Case No. 199 of 2012 was dismissed by the Principal District Court, Coimbatore on 30.07.2002.