The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has quashed criminal proceedings against the Managing Director and General Manager (HR) of a private company, ruling that the use of the word “absconding” in a show-cause notice regarding an employee’s unauthorized absence does not constitute defamation.
The Bench of Justice Brij Raj Singh allowed the applications filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., setting aside the summoning order issued by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) F.T.C./Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, in a complaint case alleging defamation punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Case Background
The applications were filed by Kamal Agrawal, Managing Director of OAM Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd., and Satya Prakash Tiwari, General Manager (HR). The opposite party, Shadab Ahmad, was an employee of the company appointed on May 14, 2022.
According to the judgment, the dispute arose when the employee allegedly went on leave from May 23, 2023, to May 29, 2023, without prior approval and managed to mark his presence through a colleague. A show-cause notice was issued on July 26, 2023. In his email reply dated July 27, 2023, the employee admitted the mistake, stating, “It was done by Mistake… I don’t have knowledge how can I mark my PL In Zing HR.”
The employee subsequently discontinued his services from July 31, 2023, without information. The company issued a letter on August 11, 2023, stating that he had not reported for duty and had “absconded” from his services. The employee eventually resigned in September 2023, and the company settled his dues, paying him Rs. 58,534 as a full and final settlement.
Despite the settlement, the employee sent legal notices demanding additional dues, which the company denied. Subsequently, on February 6, 2024, the employee filed a criminal complaint alleging that the use of the word “absconding” in the company’s notice was defamatory. The trial court summoned the applicants under Section 500 IPC.
Maintainability of Second Section 482 Application
A preliminary objection was raised by the counsel for the complainant, Ms. Priyanka Singh, arguing that the applicants had previously withdrawn a Section 482 application with liberty to move a discharge application before the trial court. Since the discharge application was rejected, she argued a second Section 482 petition was not maintainable, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in M.C. Ravikumar v. D.S. Velmurugan (2025).
Senior Advocate Shri I.B. Singh, appearing for the applicants, contended that the discharge application was rejected by the trial court solely on the ground of maintainability without deciding the merits. He argued that this constituted a “change in circumstances,” making the second petition maintainable.
The High Court rejected the preliminary objection. Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgments in Muskan Enterprises v. State of Punjab (2024) and Anil Khadkiwala v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2019), Justice Singh held:
“Since the application seeking discharge was rejected on the ground of maintainability… it is a changed circumstance, and the second application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable.”
Court’s Analysis on Defamation
On the merits of the case, the Court observed that the company had issued two show-cause notices indicating that the complainant had not reported for duty. The Court noted that the complainant had admitted to unauthorized absence and that the dispute was essentially of a civil nature regarding service conditions.
The Court examined the dictionary definitions of “absconding,” citing the Cambridge and Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries, which define it as leaving secretly or escaping from a place one is not allowed to leave without permission.
Justice Brij Raj Singh observed:
“The word ‘absconding’ does not lower down the image of the Opposite Party No.2/Complainant for the simple reason that it is admitted on record that he was not on sanctioned leave accorded by the Company and letter was sent by the Company that he was absconding, therefore, he was directed to join the duty.”
The Court further held that the complainant should have approached the appropriate forum for his service dispute rather than filing a criminal complaint.
“The Opposite Party No. 2/Complainant could have approached before the appropriate forum to raise his service grievances but he filed a criminal complaint case against the Applicants just to settle his personal score.”
Decision
The High Court concluded that the proceedings appeared to be malicious and instituted with an ulterior motive. Citing the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), the Court held that the case fell within the categories where inherent powers should be exercised to prevent abuse of process.
Consequently, the Court allowed the applications and quashed the summoning order dated February 17, 2025, and the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 9669 of 2024.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Shri Kamal Agrawal (M.D.) v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (and connected matter)
- Case No: Application U/s 482 No. 9706 of 2025 & 9802 of 2025
- Bench: Justice Brij Raj Singh
- Counsel for Applicants: Shri I.B. Singh (Senior Advocate), Ishan Baghel, Mohd. Khalid
- Counsel for Opposite Party: G.A., Abhay Pratap Singh, Priyanka Singh
