Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 374 (PNJ)

Atma Singh v. Parminder Singh

2001-03-21

V.M.JAIN

body2001
JUDGMENT V.M. Jain, J. - This is a petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, filed by the accused petitioner, seeking quashment of the criminal complaint filed by the complainant-respondent under Section 499 read with the Section 500 Indian Penal Code, against the accused petitioner. 2. The facts which are relevant for the decision of the present petition are that the present respondent had filed a criminal complaint under Section 499 read with Section 500 Indian Penal Code against the present petitioner, in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh. In the said complaint, it was alleged by the complainant that the accused had sent a letter on 27.5.1997 to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh, in which he had made derogatory and defamatory remarks against the complainant. It was alleged that on inquiry, the said complaint was found to be false. After recording the preliminary evidence, the learned Judicial Magistrate, vide order dated 20.8.1998, dismissed the criminal complaint of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant filed revision petition before the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge, vide order dated 9.10.1998, set aside the order of the learned Magistrate and sent the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh to hold further inquiry into the criminal complaint and to dispose of the same expeditiously. Thereafter, the learned Judicial Magistrate, vide order dated 25.9.1999, ordered the summoning of the present petitioner as accused under Section 500 Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved against the same, the accused petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code in this court seeking quashment of the criminal complaint and the order of summoning passed by the learned Magistrate. 3. In the written reply filed by the complainant-respondent, the various allegations made in the petition have been controverted and it has been alleged that the present petition was liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 5. The learned counsel for the accused petitioner submitted before me that no case for defamation was made out against the accused petitioner and as such, the criminal complaint filed by the complainant-respondent and the order of summoning passed by the Magistrate, were liable to be quashed. It has been submitted that the case of the petitioner was covered by exception (9th) to Section 499 Indian Penal Code, besides other exceptions. It has been submitted that the case of the petitioner was covered by exception (9th) to Section 499 Indian Penal Code, besides other exceptions. it was further submitted that the complainant had concealed the exact words, allegedly used by the accused, from the court while filing the criminal complaint. 6. Annexure P-1 is the copy of the letter dated 23.5.1997, which was allegedly written by the accused petitioner to Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh, which has been made the basis for filing the criminal complaint. A perusal of the said letter dated 23.5.1997 written by the accused petitioner to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh, would show that the accused petitioner had told the Senior Superintendent of Police that he did not know Colonel P.S. Randhawa (complainant) and when he had asked about him from Brig. K.S. Sodhi (Retired), he had told him that he did not know Colonel P.S. Randhawa at all and that he had just walked into his house. It was further alleged in the said letter that "Brig. K.S. Sodhi also told me that the manner in which he had walked into his house with a flowing beard, gave the impression of him being an unbalanced person". It is this part of the said letter dated 23.5.1997 which has been made the basis for filing the criminal complaint by the complaint against the accused, for the offence of defamation. A perusal of the said letter dated 23.5.1997, referred to above, would show that accused petitioner in the said letter had not himself said anything against the complainant, but on the other hand it was alleged that it was Brig. K.S. Sodhi, who had told him about Col. P.S. Randhawa that the manner in which he had walked into his house with a flowing beard gave the impression of him being an unbalanced person. These words were attributed by the accused petitioner in this letter, to Brig. K.S. Sodhi. Nowhere the accused petitioner had formed his opinion about the complainant being an unbalanced person. This impression about the complainant was formed by Brig. K.S. Sodhi and he accused petitioner had only told the SSP about it. The criminal complaint, copy Annexure P-2, filed by complainant-respondent against the accused petitioner, would show that the complainant had concealed the material part of the allegations by omitting the words "Brig. K.S. Sodhi also told me that...". This impression about the complainant was formed by Brig. K.S. Sodhi and he accused petitioner had only told the SSP about it. The criminal complaint, copy Annexure P-2, filed by complainant-respondent against the accused petitioner, would show that the complainant had concealed the material part of the allegations by omitting the words "Brig. K.S. Sodhi also told me that...". As referred to above, in the letter dated 23.5.1997, the accused petitioner had imputed disputed words to Brig. K.S. Sodhi. However, the while filing the criminal complaint, the complainant gave the impression that the disputed words were uttered by the accused petitioner himself. Actually, this is not so. The learned Magistrate who had initially considered the offence and had dismissed the criminal complaint, vide order dated 20.8.1998, had found that in fact the disputed words had been used by Brig. K.S. Sodhi, who had told the accused petitioner with regard to his impression about the complainant. When the matter came up in revision before the learned Sessions Judge, this matter was not at all considered by the learned Sessions Judge, who was again misled by the wording in the criminal complaint, which gave the impression that the disputed words were in facts used by the accused petitioner, even though, from a perusal of the letter dated 23.5.1997, copy Annexure P-1, these words had in fact been used by Brig. K.S. Sodhi, in respect of the complainant. The learned Sessions Judge, after setting aside the aforesaid order of the Judicial Magistrate, had sent the case back for further inquiry into the criminal complaint. When the matter again came up for consideration before the learned Magistrate, again these words have been considered as if these words had been used by the petitioner about the complainant in the letter to Senior Superintendent of Police. In fact, as referred to above, the accused petitioner had informed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh, in the aforesaid letter, that Brig. K.S. Sodhi had told him in respect of his impression about the complainant. It appears that the learned magistrate, while ordering summoning of the accused petitioner, had also fell in the same error by considering that these words were used by the accused petitioner. In fact, as referred to above, the accused petitioner had told the Senior Superintendent of Police that those words were used by Brig. It appears that the learned magistrate, while ordering summoning of the accused petitioner, had also fell in the same error by considering that these words were used by the accused petitioner. In fact, as referred to above, the accused petitioner had told the Senior Superintendent of Police that those words were used by Brig. K.S. Sodhi, who had gathered the said impression about the complainant. In para 5 of the order dated 25.9.1999, passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, while ordering the summoning of the petitioner as an accused, it has been observed that the use of these remarks by the accused has lowered the complainant in the estimation of his friends and neigbours and it has damaged the reputation of the complainant in their eyes. These remarks were made intentionally by the accused, who is high ranking retired Army Officer. To my mind, it appears that the learned Magistrate, while ordering the summoning of the petitioner as accused, had failed to consider that in fact the accused petitioner had not used any derogatory remarks against the complainant, which may give rise to the filing of the criminal complaint against the petitioner. On the other hand, the complainant had filed the criminal complaint, concealing material facts from the court by reproducing only a portion of the sentence used by the accused petitioner in his communication to the Senior Superintendent of the Police. 7. In view of my detailed discussion above, in my opinion, it would be clear that the criminal complaint filed by the complainant against accused- petitioner and order of summoning passed by the Magistrate are abuse of the process of court and are liable to be quashed. 8. For the reasons recorded above, the present petition is allowed and the criminal complaint, copy Annexure P-2 and order of summoning, copy Annexure P-5, are hereby quashed. Petition allowed.