Case title – Future Generali India Life Insurance Company Limited, v. Partha S/o. Sarathy Sarkar,
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 470
Summary
The Bombay High Court recently ruled in a criminal defamation case against Future Generali India Life Insurance, where the Managing Director and Legal Head were served summonses. The Supreme Court cited Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI to address the issue of who would be accountable for a crime committed by a company. The court ruled that all requirements outlined in the statute must be met, even in cases where a specific statute applies and the accused person is held liable for the company’s debts since they were managing its operations and accountable to it.
The case involved an employee losing their position as general manager and filing a criminal case against them in 2012. The company claimed in a written statement that a female employee had filed a sexual harassment complaint against him. The employee accused the corporation, its Managing Director, and the Legal Head of slander and filed a criminal case against them in 2012. The High Court determined the matter on its merits and dismissed the preliminary objections.
The court found no evidence that the alleged defamatory statements were made with the intent to damage the complainant’s reputation or with knowledge that it would. The court also found that the magistrate had not documented prima facie satisfaction, making the complaint not maintainable against the applicants.
Without considering the fundamental components of section 499 of the IPC, the court ruled that the magistrate merely mechanically issued the procedure against the applicants without considering their involvement or the possibility of vicarious culpability.
About the case
In a criminal defamation case, the Managing Director and the Legal Head of Future Generali India Life Insurance were served summonses, which the Bombay High Court recently ruled aside, noting that the magistrate had issued the proceedings against them arbitrarily. Defamation under Section 500 of the IPC was the charge in question, and Justice Anil S. Kilor was handling a petition contesting the order of issuing of process against the applicants. The company’s written statement in the lawsuit contained the alleged defamatory remarks.
Defamation under Section 500 of the IPC was the charge in question, and Justice Anil S. Kilor was handling a petition contesting the order of issuing of process against the applicants. The company’s written statement in the lawsuit contained the alleged defamatory remarks. In addressing the issue of who would be accountable for a crime committed by a company, the court cited Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI, in which the Supreme Court held that, in the event that there is adequate proof of criminal intent and the person’s effective role in the crime, both the company and the individual who committed the crime can be held accountable. Moreover, unless the law includes it, there is no vicarious culpability under criminal law.
The court ruled that all requirements outlined in the statute must be met, even in cases where a specific statute applies and the accused person is held liable for the company’s debts since he was managing its operations and accountable to it.2011. At Future General India Life Insurance Company Limited, one employee lost their position as general manager. He sued to get out of the firing. In that lawsuit, the business claimed in a written statement that a female employee who was a subordinate had filed a sexual harassment complaint against him. The employee accused the corporation, its Managing Director, and the Legal Head of slander and filed a criminal case against them in 2012. The accused was served with a summons by the Judicial Magistrate First Class. The revision petition that the petitioners filed in opposition to this order was denied. The applicants therefore turned to the High Court. Concerning the current application’s maintainability, the complaint voiced preliminary objections.
According to him, the applicants are not parties aggrieved under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. because they were not denied a legal right or suffered any legal injury. Furthermore, the State must be included as a respondent in any actions brought under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., which isn’t the case here. Additionally, he stated that the applicants had access to other remedies. According to the court, it is impossible to argue that the applicants are not people who have been wronged because the issuance of process is a serious matter. Regarding the second argument, which holds that adding the State as a party to proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is required, the submission is misunderstood because the law makes no mention of this. Furthermore, the State is not a necessary party in the current proceedings because they are the result of a complaint between private parties,” it continued, dismissing the second objection. The court further declared that if abuse of process or other extreme circumstances justify the employment of the High Court’s inherent powers, then doing so is not entirely prohibited.
Thus, the court determined the matter on its merits and dismissed the preliminary objections. According to the applicants, the complaint does not contain any pleas to satisfy the requirements of Section 499 of the IPC. They further maintained that the claimed defamatory statement was made in good faith and defense, hence it qualifies for the ninth exception to section 499 of the IPC. The court was informed, while contending that the complaint itself was not maintainable, as there are no pleadings pertaining to the accused’s men’s area. According to the complaint, there is a prima facie case under section 499 of the IPC, as both lower courts have recorded specific findings to that effect. Therefore, the process’s order can be sustained. According to him, the question of whether the case qualifies for the IPC’s ninth exemption is one of evidence that can be shown in court. Additionally, it was argued that publishing any defamatory remarks made in a written submission made during judicial proceedings satisfied section 499 of the IPC’s requirements.
The court reaffirmed that an imputation alone, unless it is made knowing or with the purpose to damage someone’s reputation, does not automatically qualify as defamation. The court observed that the Supreme Court has reaffirmed in a number of rulings that a criminal case is a serious matter and that the magistrate must thoroughly review the evidence before serving a summons. The Supreme Court concluded in Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, which the court cited, that the magistrate bears a strong duty to thoroughly investigate the allegation. The court reviewed the complainant’s case and found no evidence that the alleged defamatory statements were made with the intent to damage the complainant’s reputation or with knowledge that it would. Consequently, the court determined that the complaint did not meet the requirements outlined in section 499 of the IPC.In light of the applicants’ roles as the company’s MD and legal head, the court determined that the magistrate had not documented prima facie satisfaction.
“Thus, on this ground also in absence of necessary pleadings to show that there is any vicarious criminal liability, on the premise that they are in-charge of affairs of the company and responsible for it coupled with their criminal intent, the complaint itself is not maintainable against the applicant Nos. 2 and 3 and issuance of process against the applicant Nos. 2 and 3 is illegal and amounts to abuse of process of law,” it continued.
Without considering the fundamental components of section 499 of the IPC, the court ruled the magistrate merely mechanically issued the procedure against the applicants without considering their involvement or the possibility of vicarious culpability. The court thus overturned both the order of the revision court sustaining the contested judgment and the decision of the magistrate issuing process.
