number the wife of D. M. Vaswani, intending to harm and having reasons to believe that such imputations would harm the reputation of the companyplainant in the eyes and estimation of relatives, friends and associates of the companyplainant and in the eyes of general public.
Brief facts of the case are thus The petitioner herein filed a companyplaint against 7 accused persons under Section 500, I.P.C. on the accusation that accused Nos.
Accused Nos.
Similar imputations were also made by the accused Nos.
3 to 6 and D. M. Vaswani by filing a petition in Cr.
M. M 257/ 84.
It appears from the impugned judgment that the above order of the Magistrate was challenged by the respondents 3 to 6 before the High Court presumably accused Nos.
In that petition, Girish Kakkar and Ram Saran who.
4 and 5.
6 and 7 also made similar allegations.
2 and 3 made imputations both by signs and visible representations as well as in writing that the petitioner companyplainant is.
Summons were issued to all the accused by the Metropolitan Magistrate on 24th July, 1982.
M. M 127/87 reported in 1991 Cri LJ 5 partly allowing the petition so far as the second respondent Girish Kakkar is companycerned and companysequently quashing the criminal proceedings initiated against him by the petitioner, companyplainant herein, and dismissing the prayer for quashing the criminal proceedings so far as the respondents 3 to 6 before the High Court, who are number the parties to this SLP.
R. Pandian, J. The above petition is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 25th May, 1990 of the High Court of Delhi in Cr.
