M.N. DAMANI versus S.K. SINHA AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] 3 S.C.R. 415 · Decided: 02-05-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. MOHAPATRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

... 
M.N. DAMAN! 
A 
v. 
-
-" 
S.K. SINHA AND ORS. 
MAY 2, 2001 
[D.P. MOHAPATRA AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JI.] 
B 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 482-Quashing of 
Proceedings-Scope of-Complaint by A against B-Allegations of forgery, 
threat and use of force made by B against A in application for bail-A files c 
complaint for defamation-Proceedings quashed by the High Court-Held, 
there was a prim a f acie case-Quashing not justified-Indian Penal Code-
.. 
Section 500 . 
Constitution of India-Article 136-New plea-Complaint filed by A 
against B-B raising plea of the complaint being barred by limitation for the D 
first time before this Court-Held, fresh plea cannot be raised. 
The RespondPnts were accused in a proceeding under Section 138 of 
the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Respondents filed an application 
for bail in the said proceedings and alleged therein that the Appellant had 
forcibly broken open he drawer and removed the cheque book. The E 
Respondents further alleged that the Appellant forced the Respondents to 
write and sign the cheque. 
The Respondents were ultimately convicted for offence under Section 
-1. 
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act The appeal filed by the Respondents 
against their conviction was dismissed. 
F 
The Appellant, thereafter, filed a private complaint against the 
Respondents alleging commission of offence under Section 500 of the Indian 
Penal Code. The Appellant alleged in the complaint that the Respondents had 
made false and malicious allegations with intention or knowingly or having 
reasons to believe that such imputations would harm his reputation. The G 
Appellant further alleged that due to the imputations made by the Respondents, 
the reputation of the Appellant was lowered in the eyes of his partners, the 
:::·.L, 
staff and the workers. 
On the basis of the complaint filed by the Appellant, the ·Magistrate H 
415 
416 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] 3 S.C.R. 
A recorded the sworn statement of the Appellant and issued summons to the 
a, 
Respondents for offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal 
)I~ 
Code. 
The Respondents filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of 
Criminal Procedure praying for quashing the proceedings. The High Court 
B allowed the petition filed by the Respondents and quashed the proceedings. 
The Appellant filed a Special Leave Petition before this Court against 
the order of the High Court. The Respondents, inter a/ia contended that the 
complaint was barred by limitation. This plea was not raised before the lower 
courts. 
c 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. On a plain reading of the order of the Magistrate, isSlling 
.~ 
' 
summons to the respondents, keeping in view the allegations made in the 
complaint and sworn statement of the Appellant, it appears that a prima facie 
D case under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. [420-D] 
2. There are no special features in the case to say that it is not expedient 
and not in the interest of justice to permit the prosecution to continue. 
y 
(420-D] 
E 
3. Assuming that the imputations made could be covered by exception 
9 of Section 499 Indian Penal Code, several questions still remain to be 
examined-whether such imputations were made in good ~!,lith, in what 
circumstances, with what intention etc. All these can be examined on the 
basis of evidence in the trial. [420-F] 
4-
F 
Sewakram Sobhani v. R.K. Karanjia, Chief Editor, Weekly Blitz and 
Ors., [1981) 3 SCC 208; Shatrughna Prasad Sinha v. Rajbhau Surajmal 
Rathi and Ors., [1996) 6 SCC 263; Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia and Am: 
v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and Ors. etc., AIR (1988) SC 709; 
Manjaya v. Sesha Shetti, (1888) ILR 11 Mad. 4 77; Sayed Ally v. King Emperor, 
AIR (1925) Rangoon 360; Anthoni Udayar and Ors. v. Velusami Thevar and 
G Anr:, AIR 35 (1948) Madras 469 and Baboo Gunnesh Dutt Singh v. Mugneeram 
Chowdry and Ors., (1872) WR 11 SC 283, referred to. 
4. Since the question of limitation was not raised before the High Court 
by the Respondents and further whether the offence is a continuing one or 
.·";;i 
not and whether the date of the commission of offence could be taken as the 
H one mentioned in the complaint are not the matters to be examined at this 
M.N. DAMAN! v. S.K. SINHA AND ORS. [PATIL, J.) 
417 
• 
stage. [422-H] 
A 
_ .. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
596 of 2001. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.2.2000 of the Karnataka Hig

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.