Final Order 1

Order Details: Order Below EX 1
Pdf Text: C. C. No. 1908/MISC./2024
ORDER BELOW EXH.1
Read complaint, and verification statement (Exh.-4) of
complainant. Perused documents placed on record also considered the
statement of defence filed in reply to notice under section 223 of The
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
2. Heard Ld. Advocate Shri S. S. Kharat for complainant and Ld.
Advocate Smt Shabana Shaikh for the accused.
3. According to the complainant accused in reply notice dated
13/08/2024 and in plaint L. C. Suit No.1864/2024 referred the
complainant, as habitual extortionist and also mentioned the complainant
has collected huge wealth by corruption and extortion by misusing his
position as councilor. Thus, accused defamed the complainant. In defence
statement (Exh.-3) accused contended that, there is no evidence of
defamation and the statements lack of malicious intention of accused.
Therefore, no case made out for issuance of process against accused and
prayed for discharge.
4. Ld. Advocate Shri Kharat submits that, the accused in the
reply notice and the legal proceeding referred the complainant as
extortionist and also mentioned that, he has collected huge amount by
way of corruption and extortion. This is the defamatory statement
therefore, process be issued against accused.
5. Per contra, Ld. Advocate Smt. Shaikh submits that, the reply
notice and the plaint is part of legal proceeding and therefore, it cannot be
said to be defamatory statement. There is no intention of accused proved
by the complainant. Therefore, no case made out by complainant. In
support of her contention she relied on the case of Jaideep Bose V/.s M/s.
BID and Hammer Auctioneers Pvt. Ltd, dated 18/02/2025, wherein the
Hon’ble Apex Court discussed the scope of offence of defamation. Further,
-- 1 of 2 --
--2--
it has been held that, the complainant of that case failed to produce any
witness to
prima-facie establish that, alleged amputation has lowered their
reputation in the estimation of others and quashed the proceeding. On the
same point Ld. Advocate relied on the case of Pooja Anand V/s. Ashokan,
K, Kerla High Court, Criminal MC No.2811/2019 dated 08/11/2024.
6. In verification statement the complainant reiterated the
defamatory statement in plaint as well as in the reply notice, wherein the
complainant referred as extortionist. Further, the copy of reply notice and
the plaint are supported to the version of complainant. Mentioning the
complainant as extortionist is amputation to the reputation of the
complainant. Now from the statement of defence of accused it reveals
that, the said statement in question, has been made by him in the reply
notice as well as in plaint. The said statement is derogatory and
defamatory one. Therefore, from the verification statement and from
copies of reply notice and the plaint the complainant has made out the
prima-facie case against accused.
7. So far as the facts of the cited case and the present case at
hand are altogether different to each other therefore case cited by accused
are not at all applicable. Hence, I proceed to pass following order.
ORDER.
1. Issue process under section 356 (1) r/w.s. 356 (2) of The Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 against accused.
The case be registered as Summons Triable case.
Place : Mumbai.
Date: 08/04/2025.
Sd/-
(A. B. Jadhav)
Judicial Magistrate, (First Class),
71st Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
-- 2 of 2 --