Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1997 DIGILAW 1037 (RAJ)

Harbans Singh v. State of Rajasthan

1997-08-27

AMRESH KUMAR SINGH

body1997
Honble SINGH, J.–Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the non-petitioner no.2 and the learned Public Prosecutor. (2). This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 20th November, 96 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar in Criminal Regular Complaint No. 36/96. By the aforesaid order, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate discharged the accused-non-petitioner no.2 of the offences punishable under Sec-tion 500 and 501 I.P.C. (3). The facts relevant for the purpose of dispose of this petition may be summarised as below:- (4). Petitioner Harban Singh filed a complaint in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar alleging the commission of offencesunder Section 500 and 501 I.P.C. against the non-petitioner no.2. According to complaint the petitioner is a Lecturer and is in the employment of the State of Rajasthan. He was posted as Lecturer in Government Senior Secondary School, Raisinghnagar during the period from 1983 to 1995. On 17.6.95 he was transferred to some other place. Feeling aggrieved by his transfer order, he has filed a civil suitin the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division). Raisinghnagar and obtained a stay order. The non-petitioner no.2 was appointed as an officer incharge by the State of Rajasthan for the purpose of defending the State in that suit. An appeal against the injunction passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Raisinghnagar was preferred in the court of learned Additional District Judge, Raisinghna-gar. The appeal was registered at no. 82/95. On 29th November, 95 the petitioner withdrew his suit with liberty to file another suit. On 30th November, 95, the non- petitioner no.2, who was appointed as officer incharge in the case moved an application before the learned Additional District Judge, Raisinghnagar and in that application he alleged that the applicant (petitioner) was a ``Shatir person, whomight cause complications later on, and therefore, the appeal should be disposed of on merits. The application filed by the non- petitioner no.2 was disposed of on 30th November, 95. (5). Since in his application dated 30th November, 95, the non- petitioner no.2 used the word ``Shatir for the petitioner, the petitioner lodged the complaint again-st the non-petitioner no.2 alleging the commission of offences under Sections 500 and 501 I.P.C. (6). The application filed by the non- petitioner no.2 was disposed of on 30th November, 95. (5). Since in his application dated 30th November, 95, the non- petitioner no.2 used the word ``Shatir for the petitioner, the petitioner lodged the complaint again-st the non-petitioner no.2 alleging the commission of offences under Sections 500 and 501 I.P.C. (6). The learned lower court took cognizance of the aforesaid offences and on 14th February, 96 directed the issue of bailable warrants of arrest against the non-petitioner no.2. On 19th September, 96, the non-petitioner no.2 appeared beforethe lower court and moved two applications; one under Section 197 Cr.P.C. and the other for dropping the proceedings in view of exception 5 to Section 499 I.P.C. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)- cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate after hearing the arguments of both the parties, dismissed the application filed under Section 197 Cr.P.C. It was held by him that the accused (non-petitioner no.2)was not entitled the protection of Section 197 Cr.P.C.; the second application was however allowed. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate after taking into consideration the dictionary meaning of the expression ``Shatir came to the conclusion that this word is used as an adjective and is by itself not defamatory and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Additional Chief JudicialMagistrate came to the conclusion that the offences under Section 500 and 501 I.P.C. were not made out. (7). Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 20th November, 96 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum- Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed. (8). At the very outset, it may be said without any hesitation that the opportunity, which is provided to the litigants for the purpose of addressing courts in connection with the pending cases, must not be abused under any circumstances. Neither the right to move a court nor the right to speech conferred by Article 19 of the Constitution, nor the right to be defended under Article 22(2) of the Constitution, nor the personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution empowers any person to abuse the opportunity available to such person, whether he is plaintiff or is defendant or is witness. It is expected from the parties that they will use parliamentary language in accordance with the norms which though unwritten,have been consistently followed for the last several hundred years and which are in tune with our composite culture. Use of objectional words, while addressing any person in the court, verbally or in writing, must generally be avoided. It may also be said without any hesitation that the courts of law are not meant for wreaking personal vengeance and therefore, use of words, which are unparliamentary, unne-cessarily hard and offending or defamatory, must be avoided. The court must be treated as repository of the protection, which is guaranteed by the rule of law to the people against all civil and criminal wrongs. Viewed in this light, the word ``Shatir cannot be justified on any ground. Because whatever might have the dictionary of this word, common people do not use this word for the purpose ofdescribing the skills or potentials of one and other in good sense. If any person wants to appreciate the intellectual skills of any other person, there is no dearth of such terms and expressions as may be properly used for the purpose of indicating the mental skills or mental capabilities. Ordinarily, the word ``Shatir indicates a person, who is adept in playing the game of Chess. It is well known that in the gameof chess the moves are required to be well calculated, keeping in mind the possible moves of the adversary and the plan by which game is sought to be won is not disclosed to the adversary. There is thus an element of concealment involved in playing the game of chess and it is this concealment which is despised by the human society. Laying traps for others without forewarning them is not permittedin a society founded on mutual faith, truthfulness, honesty and mutual trust. This is why principles of natural justice have been recognised as essential ingredient of human justice. Calling any person who is not a player of chess ``Shatir is, therefore, highly objectionable. The use of this expression for others is therefore, inappropriate and ironical. It would be proper, if the use of such expression is altogether givenup in making verbal or written representation before the court. (9). Calling any person who is not a player of chess ``Shatir is, therefore, highly objectionable. The use of this expression for others is therefore, inappropriate and ironical. It would be proper, if the use of such expression is altogether givenup in making verbal or written representation before the court. (9). The crucial question to be decided in this petition is whether by using the word ``Shatir, the non-petitioner no.2 has committed the offences under Sections 500 and 501 I.P.C. Every expression, which is offending need not necessarily be defamatory. Words and expressions which are merely offending in nature due tohaving a tendency to injure the ego of the person for whom they are used may cause pain. But, they may not be defamatory in character. At best, they might be called provocative. On the other hand, the words which are defamatory in character need not necessarily be provocative or injurious to the esteem of the persons for whom they have been used. Besides the effect caused by the words depends on the con-text in which the word is used. Keeping these things in view, the expression ``Shatir does not appear to be per se defamatory, but if this expression is used in association with some other expression, it may acquire the character of being defamatory. (10). I have carefully gone through the reasons given by the learned AdditionalChief Judicial Magistrate and in the particular facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the findings as well as the orders passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar do not require to be disturbed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is not each and every error, irregularity or illegality which can be corrected under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The error, illegality or irregularity, if any, in view of Section 465 Cr.P.C. must be of such a nature as has in fact occasioned, a failure of justice. In the other words, an interference by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be justified where substantial injustice is likely to be caused by omission to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In the instant case, it is sufficient to point out that the use of the word ``Shatir by the non- petitioner no.2 for the petitioner was not proper or justified. The use of this expression must be avoided and it is hoped that the non-petitioner no.2 will become wiser by the enlightenment as to the legal position of his rights in the matter of making representations before a court. (11). With the above observations the prayer to interfere with the impugned order dated 20th November, 96 is declined and the petition is disposed of accordingly.