Final Order 4

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: Judgment-C. C. No. :- 769/SS/2021 ~1~
MHMM18-007152-2021 Filed on : 18/10/2021.
Registered on : 29/10/2021.
Decided on : 19/05/2025.
Duration : 03 Y., 07 M., 01 D.
Exh. : 82
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, (FIRST CLASS),
71ST COURT, BANDRA, MUMBAI.
(PRESIDED OVER BY SHRI. ATUL B. JADHAV)
C. C. No.769/SS/2021
Dinkar Shripad Honavar.
Age :- 89 Years, Occ. :- Business.
R.o.:- Flat No.10, 3rd Floor, Om Atmanand Co.-
Op.- Housing Society Ltd., Saraswat Colony,
Santacruz (W), Mumbai. …. Complainant.
V/s.
Dr. Rahul Vivek Chandavarkar.
Age :- Adault, Occ. :- Self Employed.g
R.o.:- C/o. Lat Smt. Umabai, Sanjeev Rao
Chandavarkar, Flat No.13, 3rd Floor, Om
Atmanand Co.-Op.- Housing Society Ltd.,
Saraswat Colony, Off. Linking Road, Santacruz
(W), Mumbai.
Currently residing at U. K. …. Accused.
Appearance : Learned Advocate Shri Yogesh P. Gandhi for the
complainant.
Learned Advocate Shri. Chavan for accused.
J u d g m e n t D a t e :- 19/05/2025
The accused Rahul Vivek Chandavarkar is facing the trial
for the offences punishable under sections 499 r.w.s. 500 of Indian Penal
Code.
-- 1 of 19 --
Judgment-C. C. No. :- 769/SS/2021 ~2~
2. The complainant’s case in nutshell is as under,
The complainant is highly qualified and professional super-
senior citizen aged about 90 years old. He is highly professionally
qualified and reputed businessman and made substantial and
tremendous contribution to our Nation i.e. in the field of National
Industrial Development, in the field of Welding Technology, since 1976.
He is awarded with various awards. He is presented more than 45
technical papers at National and International Welding Conferences.
The complainant is bestowed with the Silver Medallion by the Indian
Institute of Welding. The life time achievement award by the Indian
Welding Society and Presented with plaque and a citation in November
2003. He is also accorded with the Gold Membership of A.W.S. certified
and designated, as Gold Member. His association, participation and
involvement in an Indian Welding Industry has been for over six
decades. In nutshell he is having successful long journey of more than
65 years of his uninterrupted and unblemished professional career.
3. Further, it is contended that, the complainant is owner of
flat No.9 and No.10 on second floor of Om Atmanand Co. Op. Housing
Society Ltd. The complainant has been most respected and successful
elected chairman of the said society for more than 20 years, having his
reputation in the said society at large, as well as in the entire business
circle, wherein he has successfully completed and substantially
contributed and devoted in various researches and developments.
4. Accused Rahul Vivek Chandavarkar is son of Smt.
Jayashree Vivek Chandavarkar, who is widow of Late Shri Vivek Sanjeev
Rao Chandavarkar and he has been claiming to be the one of the legal
heirs of Late Smt. Umabai Sanjeev Rao Chandavarkar. Now he is
practicing in U.K., as a Psychiatrist. It is contended that, in the special
general body meeting of Om Atmanand Co. Op. Housing Society Ltd.
Dated 28/03/2021 accused mischievously designed his imaginary story
-- 2 of 19 --
Judgment-C. C. No. :- 769/SS/2021 ~3~
of him allegedly being hurt by the members present there, which was
the place source mode of malign the complainant and his family
members. The accused by using certain extremely defamatory,
unparliamentary, threatening, condemnable statements or by specific
remarks made by him categorically WhatsApp messages on WhatsApp
Group name ‘Om Atmanand Co. Op. Society’.
5. It is further contended that, the members of the society
have common WhatsApp Group by name ‘Om Atmanand Co. Op.
Society’. On 17/04/2021, 20/04/2021, 23/04/2021 and 24/04/2021
the accused used defamatory, libelous, unparliamentary words towards
the complainant. The accused mischievously and internationally
addressed the complainant as merely ‘Dinumam’, ‘Dinu’, ‘D’. the
complainant has given alleged conversation of WhatsApp Group, as
follows…
“ … Do you know dinumam at 89 yrs, you could
be popping off irrespective of covid. Sir !!.. so yet
again suggest you sell me your flats in this
building…”
Further threatening the complainant herein by
using the following words :
“ … my friend Uddav Thackeray and esp Raj and
his MNS party would be happy to remind of the
times when your properties were sealed by the IT
department … do you want the same again
Dinumam at your ripe age of 89 ? ... ”
“ … Suggest you go and get yourself tested for
syphilitic neuropathy … as this well known in
-- 3 of 19 --
Judgment-C. C. No. :- 769/SS/2021 ~4~
pathetic auto cratic persons of your age as was
well demonstrated by Hitler or even Saddam
Husain … you seem to be hiding in your home for
several decades … even before covid … but
recognize this you too are finite Sir Dinumam ... ”
“ … Dinkar S. Honawar … but if you provoke me
any further … i will call you Dinu … with a lower
case d … as we used to refer to my household cook
and servant in Sita niwas when i was less than 5
yrs old ... ”
“ … Be a man … who can stand up on his two feet
and say what you wish to my face, send your own
messages yourself … then we can talk man to man
… as for now i will call you. Dinker S Honawar …
but if you provoke me any further … i will call you
Dinu … with a lower case d … as we used to refer
to my household cook and servant in Sita niwas
when i was less than 5 yrs old ….”
“ … If i did this neither you nor your precious
family will even find a slum outside of mumbai or
even in some gutter iin indore to hide your faces in
... ”
“ … Squinting not maintaining constant eye
contact squirming and performing ritualistic highly
paranoid actions will not help anymore … thats an
-- 4 of 19 --
Judgment-C. C. No. :- 769/SS/2021 ~5~
autistic tendency … something im highly
specialized in diagnosing you with ... ”
“ … You and your parasitic family have done more
harm in our society … so yet again dinu ... ”
“ … dictatorial ways ... ”
“ … u crossed a line when you said the property
was built with substandard materials … let’s start
from there please.”
“ … Just sell me your flats and get lost …”
“ … back end with the blessings of PM MODI …
try me… i will get PM Modi to send you a direct
message to let you know who I am ... ”
“ … Or do you want me to remind you and
everybody how you established your not even
listed … electrodes company ... ”
“ … if you even poke a finer in my direction ... ”
“ … you want me to remind you or how your
eldest born grandchild has been born with
genetically driven consequences from her
ancestors … which are more than likely from you
as these are considered autosomally dominant ….
”
-- 5 of 19 --
Judgment-C. C. No. :- 769/SS/2021 ~6~
“ … get this straight dinu … I am not someone you
can bully ... ”
“ … Even the cahwl u grew up in does not exist …
what was your father’s name dinu … do you wish
me to remind you of him or your mothers name or
do you look into a mirror every morning like the “”
wicked witch “” from diseny comics … and ask the
question about who that is too? ... ”
“ … IF YOU TRY AND HUMILIATE EVER AGAIN
dinu … REMEMBER I WILL RETURN YOUR
COMPLEMENTS WITH INTEREST ... ”
“Please check with Rakesh Pandey before you reply
to this question dinu …” etc.
6. It is contended by the complainant that, the accused in the
name of political leaders threatened the complainant, to seal the
property of the complainant by IT Department. The accused referred the
complainant as ‘Hitler’ or ‘Saddam Husain’ or as a ‘dictator’. In the said
conversation he referred complainant as Dinumam. Further, the accused
referred the complainant and his family as ‘Parasitic Family’ and also
referred that, his grand daughter is suffering from the skin diseases.
Thus, according to the complainant the accused has used abusive and
defamatory words towards the complainant, which harmed the
reputation of the complainant. Therefore, on 30/04/2021, the
complainant has issued notice through e-mail and called upon him for
unconditional apology. However, it went into vain.
-- 6 of 19 --
Judgment-C. C. No. :- 769/SS/2021 ~7~
7. It is further contended that, on 30/04/2021 the accused
sent mischievous and fake reply and conditional but common Formal
Apology on said WhatsApp Group, on 02/05/2021.
8. On 30/08/2021, the complainant has sent legal notice to
accused. On 14/05/2021, the complainant and his wife Vanita sent e-
mail to Mr. Jaidev Bagde, who was sole admin of WhatsApp Group and
concerned for action. Accordingly, Shri Jaidev Bagde dissolved the
WhatsApp Group.
9. Further it is contended that, accused by using extremely
defamatory unparliamentary statements and published the same on Om
Atmanand Co. Operative Housing Society WhatsApp Group imputed
the complainant with intention to harm the reputation of the
complainant. Hence, the complainant filed the present complaint before
this court.
10. The process under section 499, 500 of Indian Penal Code
came be issued against accused. The accused appeared before the court.
On 06/06/2023, I have recorded plea of the accused, at (Exh.11)
. The
particulars of plea are read over and explained to the accused to which
the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
11. Considering the prosecution case and evidence on record
and the defence of the accused, following points do arise for my
determination. My findings thereon along with my reasons are, as
follows.
SR. NO. POINTS FINDINGS
1 Does complainant prove that, in between
17/04/2021 to 24/04/2021, in Mumbai
you accused by using certain extremely
defamatory, unparliamentary, threatening,
condemnable statements and published on
WhatsApp Group by name “Om
-- 7 of 19 --
Judgment-C. C. No. :- 769/SS/2021 ~8~
Atmananad Co. -Op. Society” imputation
concerning the complainant intending to
harm or knowing or having reason to
believe that such imputation will harm the
reputation of complainant ? Negative.
2 What order ? As per final
order.
12. The evidence of complainant some extend has been
recorded through the Court Commissioner Ld. Advocate Shri Mungekar.
The complainant’s evidence is at (Exh.-24). The complainant has filed
on record photocopies of WhatsApp Group Chats, which are at (Exh.-
69) collectively. The complainant also filed on record certificate under
section 65 (B) of the Indian Evidence Act., Notice by Ld. Advocate Shri
Gandhi, Copy of e-mail, Copy of notice to the WhatsApp Group Admin,
reply by Ld. Advocate Shri Kalsi, Copies of e-mail by accused, Copy of
unconditional apology (Exh.-70) to (Exh.-81). The complainant also
relied on the copies of e-mails sent by him and accused to each other,
which are at (Exh.-39) to (Exh.-42). The complainant has closed his
evidence by filing Pursis (Exh.-25).
13. I have recorded examination of accused under section 313
of Cr. P. C. vide (Exh.-28) through video conferencing mode. The
evidence of accused came to be recorded through video conferencing.
The accused relied on his own defence evidence, which at (Exh.-34).
The defence of accused is that, complainant has filed false complaint for
his personal grievances and for extracting money. The complainant has
filed false complaint under misunderstanding about the WhatsApp
Group conversations.
14. I have heard elaborated arguments of Ld. Advocate Shri
Yogesh P. Gandhi for complainant and Ld. Advocate Shri. Chavan for the
-- 8 of 19 --
Judgment-C. C. No. :- 769/SS/2021 ~9~
accused and also considered the written notes of arguments at (Exh.-
67).
15. Ld. Advocate Shri Gandhi for complainant submits that, the
complainant is highly educated and successful businessman awarded
with various Awards. He is super senior citizen aged about 92 years old.
The complainant is owner of flat No.9 and No.10 in Om Atmananad Co.
Operative Housing Society, located at Santacruz (W), Mumbai and he is
well acquainted with accused, whose ancestor’s had constructed the
building of Om Atmananad Co. Operative Housing Society and and
since childhood he acquainted with the accused.
16. Ld. Advocate Shri Gandhi further submits that, for day to
day affairs of Om Atamanand Co. Operative Housing Society there was
WhatsApp Group by name Om Atmananad Co. Operative Society,
wherein total 14 members including complainant and accused. One Mr.
Jaidev Bagde was the WhatsApp Group admin.
17. Ld. Advocate Shri Gandhi for complainant invited my
attention to the (Exh.-69), the disputed WhatApp chats and submitted
that, the accused by mentioning name of specific political person
threatened the complainant. He used abusive words for the
complainant, as ‘Dinuma’, ‘Dinu’, ‘D’. The accused referred the
complainant and his family, as ‘Parasitic Family’. He further referred in
the said conversation that, the complainant is dictators as ‘Hitler’. He
also without any reason made statement about skin disease of grand
daughter of the complainant. The said WhatsApp conversations have
been published by the accused in the said WhatsApp Group. The said
conversations were available to all the members of that WhatsApp
Group. The accused caused harm to the reputation of the complainant,
by defaming him. Hence, he filed the present complaint.
18. Ld. Advocate Shri Gandhi further submits that, the
WhatsApp conversations has been placed on record in the form of
-- 9 of 19 --
Judgment-C. C. No. :- 769/SS/2021 ~10~
screenshots, which is supported by certificate under section 65 (B) of
the Indian Evidence Act. WhatsApp conversations has been proved by
the complainant in his own evidence by placing copies thereof
supporting with certificate under section 65 (B) of Indian Evidence Act.
He further submits that, during cross examination of complainant there
were no suggestions regarding tampering the said WhatsApp chats
.
Defence putforth by accused is not probable and in order to prove that
the mental stage of accused is disturbed, not produced any documents.
19. The complainant is super senior citizen having good
reputation in the society. The WhatsApp chats referring the complainant
as a Dictators, Dinuma, parasitic family, is derogative as well as harmful
to the reputation of the complainant. Further, the accused has putforth
the false defence that, the complainant misused WhatsApp Group to
purchase the flat of the accused. The contradictory statements have
been proved by the complainant, in the evidence of accused. Therefore,
the complainant has proved that, accused committed an offence,
therefore, he is liable for punishment.
20. Per contra, Ld. Advocate Shri Chavan for accused submits
that, mere use of in abusive language does not amounts to defamation.
Defamatory mark includes a false statement impute or cause harm to
the reputation. The complainant has failed to prove that, the accused
made any false statement of fact with intention to defame the
complainant and cause harm to his reputation. He further submits that,
the complainant’s case is based on misinterpretation of law of
defamation. Ld. Advocate Shri Chavan for accused argued on the point
to distinguish use of abusive language and insult and threats and also
argued about essential ingredients for constitute an offence punishable
under section 500 of Indian Penal Code.
21. Ld. Advocate Shri Chavan further submits that, in the
evidence of complainant there is no proof of false factual assertion.
-- 10 of 19 --
Judgment-C. C. No. :- 769/SS/2021 ~11~
Even there is no proof of publication, as alleged. No independent
witness has been examined by the complainant in support of his case
and failed to prove that, by the alleged act of accused his reputation has
been lowered. The complainant has made contradictory statements in
his evidence. He has given the factual admissions in his cross
examination. Even no independent witness or evidence adduced by the
complainant to prove that, words of accused damaged the reputation of
complainant. Lastly, he submits that, the complainant failed to prove the
guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, accused be
acquitted.
22. In support of his arguments the Ld. Advocate Shri Chavan
also relied on case laws, as follows …
Sr. No. Case laws
1 Bavisetti Venkata Surya Rao V/s. Nandipati Muthayya
1963 SCC OnLine AP 124 (Andhra Pradesh High
Court).
2 Ram Jethmalani V/s. Subramaniam Swamy 2006
(87) DRJ 603 (Delhi High Court).
3 Addictive Learning Technology Limited and Another
V/s. Aditya Gard and Ors. 2025 SCC Online Del 1124
(Delhi High Court).
4 Jayappa L. S. & Anr V/s. N. S. Shamegowds And Anr.
1985 SCC Online Kar 16 (Karnataka High Court).
5 Dr. Nidhi Bhatnagar & Anr. V/s. Citi Bank N. A. &
Ors. 2007 SCC OnLine Del 166 (Delhi High Court).
-- 11 of 19 --
Judgment-C. C. No. :- 769/SS/2021 ~12~
6 Prem Pal Singh& Ors. V/s. Mohan Lal 1981 SCC
OnLine HP 35 (Himachal Pradesh High Court).
7 Major General M.S. Ahluwalia V/s. Tehelka .Com &
Ors. 2023 SCC OnLine Del 4275 (Delhi High Court).
8 Jeffrey J. Diermeier and Another V/s. State of West
Bengal and Another (2010) 6 Supreme Court Cases
243 [Supreme Court].
9 Jaideep Bose V/s. Bid & Hammer Auctioneers Pvt.
Ltd. 2025 SCC Online SC 348 [Supreme Court].
23. In case of Bavisetti Venkata Surya Rao V/s. Nandipati
Muthayya 1963 SCC OnLine AP 124 (Andhra Pradesh High Court), the
Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court held that,
mere use of abusive language cannot be termed as a
Defamation.
24. In case of Ram Jethmalani V/s. Subramaniam Swamy 2006
(87) DRJ 603 (Delhi High Court), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court laid
down that,
fair comment or honest opinion cannot be termed as
a Defamation.
25. In case of Addictive Learning Technology Limited and
Another V/s. Aditya Gard and Ors. 2025 SCC Online Del 1124 (Delhi
High Court), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that,
lack of proof of intention to harm the reputation or
mere subjective opinion cannot be termed as
Defamation.
26. On the same points Ld. Advocate Shri Chavan for accused
relied on the following case laws….
-- 12 of 19 --
Judgment-C. C. No. :- 769/SS/2021 ~13~
Jayappa L. S. & Anr V/s. N. S. Shamegowds And
Anr. 1985 SCC Online Kar 16 (Karnataka High
Court).
Dr. Nidhi Bhatnagar & Anr. V/s. Citi Bank N. A. &
Ors. 2007 SCC OnLine Del 166 (Delhi High Court).
Prem Pal Singh& Ors. V/s. Mohan Lal 1981 SCC
OnLine HP 35 (Himachal Pradesh High Court).
Major General M.S. Ahluwalia V/s. Tehelka .Com &
Ors. 2023 SCC OnLine Del 4275 (Delhi High Court).
Jeffrey J. Diermeier and Another V/s. State of West
Bengal and Another (2010) 6 Supreme Court Cases
243 [Supreme Court].
Jaideep Bose V/s. Bid & Hammer Auctioneers Pvt.
Ltd. 2025 SCC Online SC 348 [Supreme Court].
27. Considering the rival arguments of parties, I would like to
quote here the section 499 of Indian Penal Code for better appreciation
of the evidence and provision of law regarding Defamation, which reads
as under...
Whoever by words either spoken or intended to be
read, or by signs or by visible representations,
makes or publishes any imputation concerning any
person intending to harm or knowing or having
reason to believe that such imputation will harm,
the reputation of such person, is said except in the
cases hereinafter expected to defame that person.
28. In order to prove the guilt of accused, the complainant has
to prove that, accused must by words either spoken or intended to be
-- 13 of 19 --
Judgment-C. C. No. :- 769/SS/2021 ~14~
read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes an
imputation about a person secondly, imputation concerned the
complainant or some other person in whom the complainant was
interested, thirdly, the imputation was made by words spoken or
intended to be read or signs or visible representations and forthly the
accused by making or publishing the imputation, intended to harm or
knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the
reputation of such person.
29. By keeping in my mind the above provisions, I would like
to discuss the evidence on record. The complainant Shri. Dinkar
Honavar in his evidence deposed that, he is having mobile
No.9821037906 and said number containing the WhatsApp Group
conversations. He knows the accused. He was Chariman and Mr. Vivek
Chandavarkar was the Secretary of the society. He is involved in the
business industry, since last 59 years. He further deposed that, for last 3
years WhatsApp Group of society members was formed, wherein,
discussion used to be taken placed, as well as communication to each
members of the society and Mr. Jaidev Bagde was group admin of said
WhatsApp Group. The complainant is member of said WhatsApp Group.
30. He further deposed that, the said WhatsApp Group has
been misused by the accused and series of defamatory, threatening,
insulting messages on wide range of topics including him and his family
members. The words used in said messages is mentally caused harm to
complainant and his family members. Said WhatsApp messages were
forwarded and circulated among all the members of WhatsApp Group
making them in public.
31. The complainant deposed that, accused referred him, as
dictators as a Hitler. He also referred the skin diseases of his grand
daughter in said WhatsApp Group chats. Even he has referred the
complainant as Dinuma and also made comments that, at the age of 89
-- 14 of 19 --
Judgment-C. C. No. :- 769/SS/2021 ~15~
years the complainant may popping off in spite of Covid. The
complainant further deposed that, the accused has referred him as a
Dinuma also threatened him by saying that, he knows his friends Mr.
Udhav Thackerey and Raj Thackerey. He also referred to his family, as
parasitic family. The complainant placed on record copies of WhatsApp
Group conversations, collectively at (Exh.-69). In order to make
admissible the copies of said WhatsApp Group conversations the
complainant has filed certificate, as per the provision of 65 (B) of Indian
Evidence Act, at (Exh.-70). I have gone through the entire WhatsApp
Group chats placed on record.
32. It is to be noted that, accused not directly denied that, he
has made the said WhatsApp Group chats. During his evidence he has
also not denied that, he has made such WhatsApp Group chats. On the
contrary he admitted that, he was member of said WhatsApp Group.
Therefore, now the question remain before me is that, whether the
statements made by the accused in respect of the complainant are
defamatory, as contemplated under section 499 of Indian Penal Code or
not.
33. The WhatsApp Group chats are at (Exh.-69), which is
supported by certificate under section 65 (B) of Indian Evidence Act.
Now whether the said statements are defamatory or not is needs to be
assess by taking into consideration, under which circumstances those
statements have been made. I have gone through the entire WhatsApp
Group chats. It appears that, prior to alleged derogatory statements,
there was General meeting amongst members of Om Atmanand Co.
Operative Housing Society, wherein some statements in respect of the
construction of building came to be made and by raising objection the
accused has started to make statement against the complainant on the
said WhatsApp Group.
-- 15 of 19 --
Judgment-C. C. No. :- 769/SS/2021 ~16~
34. It was as per the conversations the complainant, who made
the remarks regarding the construction of the building, wherein it was
stated that, substandard material have been used. The building has
been constructed by ancestor of the accused and when he came to know
about said remarks about the construction accused made certain
remarks on WhatsApp Group referring the name of the complainant. In
the said conversations the accused referred the complainant in
abbreviation form Dinu. Even he has made remarks that, the
complainant and his family is parasitic and also made some remarks
towards the mother of the complainant. The accused during his
evidence categorically deposed that, he had no intention to cause any
harm to the reputation of the complainant and according to him the
complainant in order to grab money filed the present complaint.
35. It is also defence putforth by the accused that, the
complainant wants to purchase the flat belonging to the accused, to
which he denied. Therefore, he has been falsely implicated in the false
case. During cross examination the complainant admits that, the
WhatsApp Group admin Mr. Jaidev Bagde had dissolved the WhatsApp
Group. He admits that, except WhatsApp Group, he has not personal
and directly communication with the accused. He further admits that,
before dissolution of WhatsApp Group he had taken certain screen shots
of WhatsApp Group messages.
36. Ld. Advocate Shri Chavan for accused by referring the
complainant during cross examination proved the omission about
portion that, L & T machine put at his back and further more, he has
blessing for P. M. Modi. The said omission amounts to an contradiction.
37. The complainant further admits that, his grand daughter is
suffering from some skin diseases. He further admits that, word referred
in examination in chief as ‘Dinuma’ as ‘Dinu’ uncle. He further admits
that, Dinuma is abbreviation of his first name Dinkar. He further admits
-- 16 of 19 --
Judgment-C. C. No. :- 769/SS/2021 ~17~
his close friends called him, as a Dinu as well as Dinuma. Both Dinu and
Dinuma words are not bad words. He further admits that, he had not
taken medical treatment for trauma or mental agony. The complainant
denied that, present legal battle between them is nothing but ego fight.
38. Now come to the actual WhatsApp Group messages, I
would like to state here that, referring ‘Dinuma’ and ‘Dinu’ or ‘D’ is mere
abbreviation of name of complainant Dinkar and as per admissions in
cross examination those words are not at all bad. Therefore, the said
reference ‘Dinuma’ or ‘Dinu’ or ‘D’ cannot be came in the ambit of
definition of the defamation. It is to be noted that, mere use of abusive
language cannot be termed as defamation. Fair comment or word in
order to chat cannot be termed as a defamation.
39. Therefore, considering remaining conversation for referring
the complainant as a dictators like Hitler or his family members as
parasitic, is also not at all a defamatory statements. The WhatsApp
Group messages (Exh.-69) needs to be assess carefully, since inception.
In that regard it has been come on record that, in one Zoom meeting
some unwell-come messages about construction of building have been
made and those were relating to ancestor of accused and in that context
accused might had published said chat.
40. Even those chat have been replied by the complainant,
wherein the complainant tried to give understanding to the accused
that, he has never intention to make remarks about construction of
building of society. However, the conversation was going on and some
remarks come to be passed against the complainant like, he and his
family is parasitic, he is dictators and his grand daughter suffering from
skin disease. It is to be noted that, during cross examination the
complainant admits his grand daughter is suffering from skin disease.
41. Therefore, it is not at all the false statement in respect of
the complainant as well as his grand daughter. Therefore, the said
-- 17 of 19 --
Judgment-C. C. No. :- 769/SS/2021 ~18~
remarks also not come within the purview of definition of defamation.
Some abusive or insulting language alleged to have been used by the
accused towards the complainant but the case is in respect of
defamation of the complainant. Therefore, some use of abusive
language or threatening language cannot come within the ambit of
definition of defamation. The accused has categorically proved omission
in respect of portion regarding machine of L & T in the evidence of
complainant.
42. Further, the said statements cannot be said to the
defamation of the complainant. It is to be noted that, some certain
statements taken by the complainant in the conversation of the
WhatsApp Group chat latter on the said WhatsApp Group has been
dissolved by admin Jaidev Bagde. Even said WhatsApp Group chats not
recognized or any estimation given by other WhatsApp Group members.
43. Further more, the vary main aspect is that, while publishing
the said chat against the complainant the accused had intend to defame
the complainant, is not at all proved by the complainant. The said
conversation has been made by accused after some passing remarks
about construction quality of the building. Therefore, I hold that, the
complainant failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable
doubt. Hence, I record my findings to the point No.1 in the negative. In
the result, I proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
i. The accused viz. Rahul Vivek Chandavarkar, is hereby
acquitted of the offence punishable U/Sec. 499 r.w.s.
500 of Indian Penal Code, as per Sec. 255 (i) of Criminal
Procedure Code.
ii. Bail bonds of the accused are continued till appeal
period.
-- 18 of 19 --
Judgment-C. C. No. :- 769/SS/2021 ~19~
iii. Judgment dictated and pronounced in open Court.
Date :19/05/2025.
SRD.
(A. B. Jadhav)
Judicial Magistrate, (First Class),
71st Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
Dictated on :- 19/05/2025.
Transcribed on :- 20/05/2025.
Checked on :- 23/05/2025.
Signed on :- 23/05/2025.
SRD.
-- 19 of 19 --