Court quashes proceedings in defamation case; complaint fails to disclose offense.

The court quashed the proceedings in C.C. No. 4081 of 2019 on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, stating that the complaint did not disclose the offense of defamation. The connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Alleged Defamation under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Jurisdiction of the Magistrate at Saidapet.
3. The role and liability of officers of the petitioner company.
4. Compliance with the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005.
5. Confidentiality and publication of credit information.

Summary of Judgment:

1. Alleged Defamation under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code:
The core allegation is that the petitioners published false entries in CIBIL, suggesting the respondent defaulted on a loan and a suit was filed for recovery, thereby harming the respondent's reputation. The court found that the entries made in CIBIL were based on statutory requirements under the CIC Act and were not false. The entries included information about the default and the subsequent suit, which were factual. The court noted that defamation under Section 499 IPC requires an imputation made with the intention to harm or with knowledge that it will harm the reputation of the person. Since the information was provided under statutory obligations and kept confidential, it did not amount to defamation.

2. Jurisdiction of the Magistrate at Saidapet:
The petitioners argued that the occurrence took place within the jurisdiction of Kerala, and thus, the Magistrate at Saidapet had no jurisdiction. The respondent countered that since he is a resident of Chennai and his reputation was harmed there, the Saidapet Magistrate had jurisdiction. The court did not find this argument sufficient to establish jurisdiction at Saidapet.

3. The role and liability of officers of the petitioner company:
The petitioners contended that even if the first petitioner committed the alleged offense, the other officers could not be held vicariously liable in the absence of specific allegations against them. The court agreed, noting that there were no specific allegations detailing the role of the officers in the alleged defamation.

4. Compliance with the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005:
The petitioners argued that the CIC Act provides a mechanism for resolving disputes related to credit information, including arbitration and conciliation. The court noted that the respondent did not resort to this mechanism. The court emphasized that the CIC Act requires credit institutions to provide accurate information to credit information companies and that any disputes regarding such information should be resolved as per the provisions of the CIC Act.

5. Confidentiality and publication of credit information:
The court highlighted that the information provided to CIBIL is confidential and not accessible to the general public. The respondent's claim that his business circle and friends became aware of the false entries was found to be implausible due to the confidentiality provisions under the CIC Act. The court concluded that the information provided under statutory requirements could not be considered defamatory as it was not intended to harm the respondent's reputation.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the proceedings in C.C. No. 4081 of 2019 on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, stating that the complaint did not disclose the offense of defamation. The connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed.

---