Court can decide on merits of the case if the other party’s counsel is withdrawing

Yugashree | School of Law Sastra University, Thanjavur | 24^th April 2020

R. Raghavan vs. Educomp Solutions Ltd

The petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings by learned Judicial Magistrate and quash the same.

Facts and Issue:

• Respondent has filed a memo stating that he is withdrawing the memo of appearance filed on behalf of the respondent as there is no communication between them.
• Partner of Dinamalar which is a Tamil newspaper publishing daily is the petitioner in this case and the respondent is running an educational institution providing smart class rooms.
• On the basis of deficiency of the services the respondent was directed by the consumer court to pay a compensation of 50,000 rupees and the costs of rupees 5,000 to four educational institutions for deficiency of services and the mental agony caused to the for not providing service as promised and it was published in the petitioners newspaper.
• The respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner under sections 191(A) and 200 of Cr.P.C alleging that the news published was without considering the imputation being inflicted on them. The term ‘fraud’ in the news report led its reputation to be characterized and injured. The said defamation complaint was taken by the judge, Madurai, and the summons was issued. Hence the present petition to quash the same.
• The petitioner states that they only after thorough perusal of the pleading and scrutiny of the evidence. Hence they have used the term ‘fraud’ in their report with the limited meaning for the publication of the news item, since the deceptive method adopted by the complainant has been spoken in the pleadings and evidence. The petitioners have employed the word ‘fraud’ used in common parlance. 
• Therefore the word ‘fraud’ used in the news items is not a defamatory expression. It is also pointed out by the petitioners that they have used the said expression in good faith. It being a bonafide reporting of the court verdict it will not attract the ingredients of defamation. Having published the court verdict in the public interest with out with any ill motive or dis-honest intention the complaint against them has to be quashed.
• Court heard the learned council for the petitioners while council for the respondent withdraws the memo and a memo is filed to that effect.
• News report which is under scrutiny in this petition, Court finds that the word ‘fraud’ has been employed in the news report since the consumer forum has held that the respondent company after promising to provide smart class to the students by employing teachers have failed to employ teachers, thereby cause monetary loss to the concerned institute and also mental agony to them.
• The petitioners have employed the word ‘fraud’. Since the fact of the case warrants to use it. The complaint alleges the news report and caption attracts ingredients for ordinary dictionary meaning for ‘fraud’.
• The petitioners are editors and publishers of a reputed news paper. There is no element of malice or ulterior motive to report anything defamatory. The word ‘fraud’ as defined in the IPC cannot be found present case reported. However the word ‘fraud’ is used by the petitioners for the common man understanding. Reporting the verdict of consumer forum cannot be construed as defamatory expression causing dis repute to the respondents.

Judgement:

The court decided on the merits of the case that it allowed the petition to be dealt and quashed the case before Judicial Magistrate at Madurai.