Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1189 (RAJ)

Nathu Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2012-05-09

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioners challenging the order dated 3.7.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Udaipur in Criminal Revision No. 51/2008 whereby he has affirmed the order dated 23.4.2008 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhariyawad, District Udaipur in Criminal Case No. 129/2008 taking cognizance against the petitioners for the offence under Section 500 I.P.C. 3. Succinctly stated the facts necessary for the disposal of the instant misc. petition are that the respondent No. 2 complainant filed a complaint against the petitioners in the Court of A.C.J.M., Dhariyawad with the allegations that the petitioners were the members of the community to which the complainant also belongs. The petitioners issued a mandate to ex-communicate the complainant from the society as a result whereof the complainant was defamed and was being looked down by the other members of the community. On the presentation of the complaint, the proceedings under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. were initiated and the learned Magistrate vide order dated 23.4.2008 proceeded to take cognizance against the petitioners for the offence under Section 500 I.P.C. The petitioners preferred revision which too has been dismissed. Hence, the petitioners have preferred the instant misc. petition aggrieved of the orders impugned. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that mere resolution by the members of a community not to have relations with the complainant, does not amount to an act of defamation. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decisions of this Court rendered in the case of (1) Phool Chand & Ors. v. Baktawar Mal, reported in 1997 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 575 and (2) Sohan Lal & Ors. v. State & Anr., reported in 2006 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 430 . Thus, he submits that the firstly there is no material on the record of the case to show that the petitioners being the members of the community had taken any decision to ex-communicate the complainant from the community and in the alternative, it is contended that by a mere resolution to ex-communicate the complainant from the society being taken, it cannot be assumed that there was any act of defamation of the complainant committed by the petitioners within the meaning of Section 500 I.P.C. 5. Per contra, Learned counsel for the complainant has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Shaukat Ali v. Abjul Gafoor & Ors., reported in 2011 WLC 690 wherein this Court has held that the decision rendered by this Court in Phool Chand (supra) was suffering from the vice of sub-slientio and, therefore, does not lay down good law. He thus argues that that misc. petition being bereft of any force deserves dismissal. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at bar and have gone though the material available on record. 7. The fact regarding the decision taken by the petitioners to ex-communicate the complainant from the community cannot be doubted this stage. The veracity of the allegations can only be gone into at the trail. In view of the view taken by this Court in Shaukat Ali's case (supra) wherein the earlier decisions of this Court have been distinguished, the prosecution of the petitioners for the offences under Section 500 I.P.C. cannot be said to be unjustified. 8. The upshot of the above discussion is that the instant misc. petition being bereft of any force is hereby rejected. 9. Stay petition also stands rejected.Petition rejected. *******