Page I
Case Judgement
\
2024 P Cr. L J 1326
[Sindhi
Before Omar Slal, J
ASAD ALI TOOR-Applicant
Versus
Messrs AXACT PRIVATE LIMITED through Authorized Officer and anotherRespondents
Cr. Misc. Application No. 715 of 2022, decided on 19th June, 2023.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-
--S. 561-A-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 499,500, 502-A & 505--Defamation-Private complaint---Quashmeat of proceedings---Petitioner uploaded a video on his
YouTube channel, which two employees working for respondent company claimed
defamed the company-Respondent company filed a private complaint against the
petitioner and the Trial Court registered the complaint-Validity-If respondent
company was aggrieved then why did it not act, as required under the companies
legislation, to initiate criminal proceedings---No resolution passed by the company in
its general body or Board of Directors was on record or was ever obtained-How did
the two persons, who had filed the complaint, claim that they were aggrieved by the
alleged defamation when they were in essence some unknown employees of a
subsidiary, of respondent company---Why was a criminal complaint being filed in city
"K", even though the law allowed the same to be filed, however it would have been
more convenient for both parties to litigate in city "1"---Court should have considered
the said basics, at the very least, before taking cognizance of a criminal complaint that
was a challenge to the fundamental right of freedom of speech-Initiation of
unnecessary litigation causes massive burden and inconvenience to the parties involved
and further burdens an already struggling criminal justice system--Both the parties in
their own ways had contributed extensively towards defending the right of freedom of
expression and speech in the country--When persons of such profile and large
admiration base come into conflict for minor, insignificant reasons, it no doubt causes
a negative impact on the right of freedom of expression--It seemed that present case
was more a case of conflict of egos than real criminal harm--Hopefully parties will be
in a position to resolve such disputes through mediation---Complaint was vague from
which it seemed that respondent company itself had given an interpretation to claim
that what petitioner said was regarding them-Two unknown employees of a
subsidiary company of respondent claimed to be aggrieved; respondent,. itself did not
initiate any complaint for defamation to it; no authorization was available from
respondent to the two employees to initiate action; and most importantly the right of
freedom of expression was being attacked on a flimsy ground---In such circumstances,
it would be appropriate to quash the proceeding arising out of the complaint filed by
respondent---Proceedings were quashed accordingly.
http://www.plsbeta.com/Law0nline/law/content21.asp?Casedes=2024K3045
11/7/2024 8:51 :44 AM