Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 113 (JK)

Amar Singh v. Birinder Singh

2007-07-06

J.P.SINGH

body2007
1. Process issued by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (Forest Magistrate) Jammu, vide his order dated 09.07.2003, on the complaint of Birinder Singh, the first respondent, under Sections 500/501 and 502 R.P.C has been questioned by the petitioners in this petition filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Alleging harassment by the first respondent, an advocate by profession, who is in civil litigation with the petitioners regarding land and house falling in Khasra No. 1102 situated at Village Gandharwan Tehsil Akhnoor, the petitioners submit that the process of the Criminal Court against the petitioners had been misused by the first respondent to force the petitioners to settle the civil dispute otherwise than in accordance with law. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that first respondents compliant did not disclose any offences for which the petitioners had been summoned by the learned Magistrate. Learned counsel for the first respondent, denying the allegation of harassment to the petitioner by the first respondent, on the other hand, supports the process issued by the learned Magistrate, relying on Balraj Khanna vs. Moti Ram, AIR 1971 SC1389 and submitting additionally that in view of the law laid down in State of Haryana vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors, AIR 1992 SC 604, no case for quashing the process issued on the complaint of the first respondent had been made out by the petitioners. 4. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. 5. Grievance projected by the first respondent, as is evident from his statement recorded on oath on 9.7.2003, pertains only to the publication of a news item in State Times Issue of 17th of June, 2003, in which he is stated to have bribed the police to harass petitioners No. and 2. The preliminary statement of the first respondent does not indicate/any other imputation of the petitioners against the first respondent, which imputation may be said to have resulted in his defamation. The news item, as it appears in the newspaper, too does not indicate that the petitioners had alleged the first respondent to have bribed the police. The statement of the first respondent and his witness, when read in the light of the news item, thus does not make out any case of the petitioners having committed the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Ranbir Penal Code. 6. The statement of the first respondent and his witness, when read in the light of the news item, thus does not make out any case of the petitioners having committed the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Ranbir Penal Code. 6. It appears that the grievance of the first respondent in the complaint that the petitioners had got the news item published in State Times so as to defame him, had not been examined by the learned Magistrate in right perspective. Ignoring the necessary ingredients of Sections 501 and 502 of the R.P.C., Learned Magistrate appears to have acted hurriedly in issuing process against the petitioner for all those offences, which the complainant had mentioned in his complaint. 7. Sections 501 and 502 of the Ranbir Penal Code thus need to be noticed. These are as follows:-- "501: Printing or engraving matter known to be defamatory:--Whoever prints or engraves any matter, knowing or having good reasons to believe that such matter is defamatory of any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. 502: Sale of printed or engraved substance containing defamatory matter:--Whoever sells or offers for sale any printed or engraved substance containing defamatory matter, knowing that it contains such matter, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. " 8. In order to issue process for the infraction of sections 501 and 502 of the Ranbir Penal Code, a Magistrate has to be satisfied on the basis of what is contained in the statement of the complainant and evidence produced in support thereof that the person(s) sought to be proceeded against for the infraction of these offences had printed or engraved any matter, knowing or having good reasons to believe that such matter was defamatory of any person AND that he/they had sold or offered for sale any printed or engraved substance containing defamatory matter, knowing that it contained such matter. 9. 9. A bare perusal of Sections 501 and 502 would show that unless the complainant had indicated in his statement that the petitioners, or for that matter any other person, had printed or engraved any matter knowing it that such matter was defamatory and, that they had sold or offered to sell any printed or engraved substance having defamatory matter, knowing that it contained such matter, no case for issuing process would be permissible. The statements of the complainant and his witness, do not satisfy the requirements of sections 501 and 502 of the Ranbir Penal Code, in the present case. 10. The judgment cited by learned counsel for the respondent in Balraj Khannas case (supra) may hot be applicable to the facts of the present case because the judgment in question does not deal with the issue, which falls for consideration in this petition. 11. There being no allegation in the complaint that the petitioners had imputed any defamatory allegation against the first respondent, which may amount to defamation, thereby entailing prosecution under Section 500 R.P.C, And the statement of the first respondent omitting to satisfy the requirements of Sections 501 and 502 of the Ranbir Penal Code, the learned Magistrate had erred in issuing process against the petitioners. Process issued by the learned Magistrate is thus unwarranted. 12. Compliant filed by respondent No. 1 and process issued there on by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (Forest Magistrate) Jammu, is, accordingly, found to be the abuse of process of Criminal Court. These are, accordingly, quashed.