Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 4843/2016 and Crl.M.A. 10023-10026/2018
CRL.M.C. 4843/2016 and Crl.M.A. 10023-10026/2018
CRL.M.C. 4845/2016 and Crl.M.A. 10029-10030/2018
CRL.M.C. 4846/2016 and Crl.M.A. 10027-10028/2018
AMISH JAIN Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person.
AMISH JAIN Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person.
VERSUS
\ STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) &ORS Respondents
Through: Mr. Ashish Dutta, APP for the State Mr. Punit K. Bhalla, Advocate with
Mr. C. Bhalla, Adv. for R-2 & R-3.
Through: Mr. Ashish Dutta, APP for the State Mr. Punit K. Bhalla, Advocate with
Mr. C. Bhalla, Adv. for R-2 & R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
11.09.2018 The petitioner concededly was a principal borrower from the second respondent Bank (ICICI Bank Limited) in respect of three loan accounts, his parents also being co-borrowers in some of them, they also concededly being indefault inrepayment, this admittedly having given rise to a cause of action in favour of the respondent Bank to treat loan accounts as "Non-
Performing Assets (NPA)" and initiating action underthe Securitisation And
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest
Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). It appears notices to the borrowers, i.e., petitioner and his parents in respect of said loan accounts treated as NPA raising demand of repayment were issued on 09.07.2012, which were acknowledged having been receivedon 19.07.2012. The lenderBank issued
11.09.2018 The petitioner concededly was a principal borrower from the second respondent Bank (ICICI Bank Limited) in respect of three loan accounts, his parents also being co-borrowers in some of them, they also concededly being indefault inrepayment, this admittedly having given rise to a cause of action in favour of the respondent Bank to treat loan accounts as "Non-
Performing Assets (NPA)" and initiating action underthe Securitisation And
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest
Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). It appears notices to the borrowers, i.e., petitioner and his parents in respect of said loan accounts treated as NPA raising demand of repayment were issued on 09.07.2012, which were acknowledged having been receivedon 19.07.2012. The lenderBank issued
CRL.M.C. 4843/2016 Page 1of3
2018:DHC:8360 a notice under SARFAESI Act, which was published in newspaper Indian
Express at Lucknow on 30"" August, 2012 and certain other dates, it including the name of the petitioner and other borrowers, besides reference to several other similarly placed persons advising each of them to make the payment of outstanding amount within sixty days of the publication of the said notice in terms ofthe requirement ofSARFAESI Act.
Taking exception to the said publication terming it as defamatory, the petitioner instituted three criminal complaints in the court of Chief
V Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Delhi. The said complaints
(Nos.l 11/2/2014; 4/1/2014; and 3/1/2014) were, however, dismissed by the said court on 05.02.2016.
The petitioner assailed the said order by bringing petitions (Criminal
Revision Nos. 26-28 of 2016) before the court of Sessions invoking its revisional jurisdiction. The three criminal revision petitions were, however, dismissed by common order dated 24.08.2016, the crucial reason why the petitioners failed before the revisional court being set out in (para 10) ofthe
^ said order which reads, thus:- "10. Bethatas it may, the Court cannot lose sight ofthefact that the complainant did not examine any person known to him or any prudent person apart from himself to establish the fact that the public notice so published by the respondents, lowered the esteem of the complainant in his (person hiown to him/prudent person) eyes. Rather, his statement reveals that there is no mention ofhow the members of the society or reasonable people perceived the alleged defamatory publication. When in such a case, none other than complainant himself has been examined, in my opinion, the complainantfailed to establish a primafacie case to summon the respondents and therefore, the only conclusions which can be arrived at, is to dismiss the complaints. "
CRL.M.C. 4843/2016 Page 2of3
£ Examining the law with reference to the offence of defamation, as defined in Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) punishable under Section 500 IPC, this court in S.T.P. Singh vs. Tarsem Singh & Ors., Crl.M.C.4514/2015, decided on 3'^'' July, 2018, had ruled thus:-
2018:DHC:8360 a notice under SARFAESI Act, which was published in newspaper Indian
Express at Lucknow on 30"" August, 2012 and certain other dates, it including the name of the petitioner and other borrowers, besides reference to several other similarly placed persons advising each of them to make the payment of outstanding amount within sixty days of the publication of the said notice in terms ofthe requirement ofSARFAESI Act.
Taking exception to the said publication terming it as defamatory, the petitioner instituted three criminal complaints in the court of Chief
V Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Delhi. The said complaints
(Nos.l 11/2/2014; 4/1/2014; and 3/1/2014) were, however, dismissed by the said court on 05.02.2016.
The petitioner assailed the said order by bringing petitions (Criminal
Revision Nos. 26-28 of 2016) before the court of Sessions invoking its revisional jurisdiction. The three criminal revision petitions were, however, dismissed by common order dated 24.08.2016, the crucial reason why the petitioners failed before the revisional court being set out in (para 10) ofthe
^ said order which reads, thus:- "10. Bethatas it may, the Court cannot lose sight ofthefact that the complainant did not examine any person known to him or any prudent person apart from himself to establish the fact that the public notice so published by the respondents, lowered the esteem of the complainant in his (person hiown to him/prudent person) eyes. Rather, his statement reveals that there is no mention ofhow the members of the society or reasonable people perceived the alleged defamatory publication. When in such a case, none other than complainant himself has been examined, in my opinion, the complainantfailed to establish a primafacie case to summon the respondents and therefore, the only conclusions which can be arrived at, is to dismiss the complaints. "
CRL.M.C. 4843/2016 Page 2of3
£ Examining the law with reference to the offence of defamation, as defined in Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) punishable under Section 500 IPC, this court in S.T.P. Singh vs. Tarsem Singh & Ors., Crl.M.C.4514/2015, decided on 3'^'' July, 2018, had ruled thus:-
"9. It is clear from a bare reading of the above extracted provision that it is not only essential that the impugned imputation harming the reputation of the person in question must be alleged to have been "made" or "published" but also that it must be shown, amongst others, to have directly or indirectly, inter alia, lowered the moral or intellectual character of the said person "in the
estimation ofothers ". "
The view taken by the revisional court, in above light, cannot be faulted. In absence of any other person having been examined, the complaints could not have succeeded.
The petitions are, thus, dismissed.
SEPTEMBER 11, 2018 vk
The view taken by the revisional court, in above light, cannot be faulted. In absence of any other person having been examined, the complaints could not have succeeded.
The petitions are, thus, dismissed.
SEPTEMBER 11, 2018 vk
CRL.M.C. 4843/2016 Page 3 of3
JUDGMENT