Use of ‘Absconding’ in Employment Context Not Defamatory Per Se, But A Privileged Communication Under Exception 7 of Section 499 IPC: Allahabad High Court

“Criminal Law Cannot Be Weaponised For Service Grievances”, Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) while deciding two linked applications under Section 482 CrPC. The case involved a challenge to a defamation complaint lodged by a former employee against the Managing Director and HR Manager of a private company. The Court not only held that a second application under Section 482 is maintainable due to a change in circumstances but also quashed the entire criminal proceedings, calling the complaint “malicious” and a misuse of the legal process.

Justice Brij Raj Singh, sitting in the criminal jurisdiction of the High Court, allowed the applications filed by Kamal Agrawal (Managing Director) and Satya Prakash Tiwari (General Manager-HR) against orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow in Complaint Case No. 9669 of 2024, including the summoning order, bailable warrant, and rejection of discharge.

“First Application Was Withdrawn Without Adjudication On Merits — Second 482 CrPC Petition Is Maintainable”

At the heart of the procedural controversy was the maintainability of a second petition under Section 482 CrPC. The complainant's counsel objected, arguing that the applicants had previously filed an application (U/s 482 No. 4525 of 2025) challenging the summoning order and criminal proceedings, which was later withdrawn without liberty to file afresh.

However, the Court clarified that the earlier petition had not been adjudicated on merits and was withdrawn solely to pursue a discharge application before the trial court, which in turn was dismissed as “not maintainable in complaint cases.”

The Court drew strength from Supreme Court precedents including Muskan Enterprises v. State of Punjab, Anil Khadkiwala v. State (NCT of Delhi), and Bhisham Lal Verma v. State of U.P., emphasizing that:

“The principle of res judicata, traceable to Section 11 of the CPC, does not apply to criminal proceedings nor is there any provision in the CrPC akin to Order XXIII Rule 1(3), CPC.”

Further, the Court held that the rejection of the discharge plea due to maintainability issues constituted a "change in circumstance", making the second 482 CrPC application legally maintainable.

“Absconding Is Not A Defamatory Term When Used In Employment Notices Sent In Good Faith”

Turning to the substance of the defamation complaint under Section 500 IPC, the High Court found that the core grievance of the complainant—being referred to as “absconding” in show cause notices—did not, in law, constitute defamation.

The complainant, Shadab Ahmad, had worked for OAM Industries Pvt. Ltd. and received show-cause notices in July and August 2023 due to his unauthorized absence from duty. The company referred to his prolonged absence without sanctioned leave as “absconding” and issued letters accordingly. The complainant subsequently resigned and accepted full and final settlement of dues amounting to ₹58,534. He later initiated a defamation complaint, alleging that the term “absconding” harmed his reputation, especially as it was read by his wife and sister-in-law.

Rejecting the complaint, the Court noted: “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.”

The Court placed reliance on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Judicial Magistrate, reaffirming that criminal law cannot be set into motion in a mechanical or retaliatory manner, particularly in service disputes.

Justice Singh observed that the notices issued by the company were protected communications under the Seventh Exception to Section 499 IPC, which covers:

“Censure passed in good faith by person having lawful authority over another.”

He further noted: “The allegations made in the complaint are improbable and are also privileged... no prudent person can reach the conclusion as alleged by the complainant.”

“This Is A Classic Abuse Of Process, Meant To Harass The Employer”: Court

In a sharp rebuke to the complainant, the Court highlighted that the real issue stemmed from a service dispute for which appropriate remedies lay before civil or labour tribunals. Instead, the complainant misused the criminal process to “settle personal scores.”

The Court stated: “Once the show cause notices were given prior to filing of the complaint, the present complaint is just to take revenge of the action taken by the Applicants... The complaint appears to be mala fide, out of malice.”

The ruling relied heavily on the principles laid down in Bhajan Lal, particularly the seventh ground under Paragraph 102 which permits quashing where proceedings are initiated with “an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance”.

In doing so, the Court found that the ingredients of criminal defamation were not present, and the trial court had failed to apply judicial mind while issuing the summoning order. It reminded that summoning is not a matter of course but a serious judicial exercise.

In allowing the petitions, the Allahabad High Court emphasized the distinction between civil/service disputes and criminal prosecution. It quashed the complaint, holding that calling an employee “absconding” for unauthorized leave in internal communications does not amount to defamation. Furthermore, it reaffirmed the High Court’s powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash frivolous criminal complaints, especially where no prima facie case is made out and the process is being abused.

The Court concluded: “The entire proceedings arising out of Complaint Case No. 9669 of 2024 pending before the trial Court are quashed qua the Applicants... The trial court is directed to be informed accordingly.”

Date of Decision: November 27, 2025