Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 496 (PNJ)

Gurcharan Kaur v. Shamsher Singh

2013-04-12

Paramjeet Singh

body2013
JUDGMENT Mr. Paramjeet Singh, J. (Oral):- For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 29 days in filing the petition for leave to appeal is condoned. 2. Instant application for leave to appeal has been filed by the applicant challenging the order dated 01.10.2012 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Moga whereby the complaint preferred by applicant under Section 499/500/120-B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) has been dismissed. 3. Brief facts of the case are that a complaint titled ‘Shamsher vs. Gurcharan Singh and others’ wherein Gurcharan Kaur and others were summoned, however, the said complaint was quashed by this Court vide order dated 03.03.2011. Thereafter, the applicant filed a complaint titled ‘Gurcharan Kaur vs. Shamsher Singh and others’ under Sections 499/500/120-B of IPC. The said complaint has been dismissed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Moga by passing a speaking order. Aggrieved against the impugned order, the instant application for leave to appeal has been filed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that since the complaint filed by Shamsher Singh and others was false and frivolous against the present applicant and others and the said complaint has been quashed by this Court, for that reason, there is a defamation of the applicant and others. 6. I have considered the contention of learned counsel for the applicant. 7. Trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record dismissed the complaint by recording the following finding: “On perusal it is clear that in the present complaint, complainant initiated the proceedings against Shamsher Singh, Jaspal Kaur and Gelo accused and the basis of the dispute was regarding the mutation as she was summoned to face trial in a complaint titled as Shamsher Singh vs. Gurcharan Kaur and that was quashed by the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 03.03.2011 and dispute was regarding mutation related to the inheritance of Rattan Singh son of Sham Singh, deceased which was sanctioned by the A.C-IInd Grade, Baghapurana vide his order dated 12.12.1996, on the basis of natural succession. Against his order present complainant Smt.Gurcharan Singh filed an appeal before the Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum-Collector Baghapgrana on the ground that she has registered Will in her favour and as such the mutation in question be sanctioned in her favour alone and not other legal heirs. Against his order present complainant Smt.Gurcharan Singh filed an appeal before the Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum-Collector Baghapgrana on the ground that she has registered Will in her favour and as such the mutation in question be sanctioned in her favour alone and not other legal heirs. The Collector summoned the appellant and other respondent but they did not appear and as such ex parte proceedings were taken against them. Thereafter the collector after recording the evidence of scribe and attesting witnesses of the registered Will dated 10.04.1995, came to the conclusion that the Will in question is duly proved in accordance with law. The said Will has not been set aside or cancelled by any competent Civil Court. The learned Collector, therefore, vide his order dated 25.06.2002 has sanctioned the mutation in question in favour of Gurcharan Kaur (present complainant) alone on the basis of registered Will dated 10.04.1995 and later legal/natural heirs of Rattan Singh being aggrieved by that order filed a complaint against Gurcharan Kaur (present complainant) and she was summoned and after that complaint was quashed by order of Hon’ble High Court and then present complainant filed present complaint against the accused. To prove her case, complainant herself appeared as CW-1 and examined CW-2 Major Singh and CW-3 Kartar Singh who stated in verbatim. CW-1 and CW-2 stated to the extent that a criminal case was registered which is tilted as Shamsher Singh vs. Gurcharan Kaur and in that case Gurcharan Kaur was kept in custody from 06.07.2005 to 11.10.2005. In view of all these facts and circumstances, there is no material on the file to make out if Shamsher Singh, jaspal Kaur and Gello arrayed as accused in this complaint, have committed any defamation, rather the complainant has filed another complaint as all of them being natural heirs of Rattan Singh. Now on every other day one of them used to file a complaint in the court and if court started entertaining these frivolous complaint there would be no end to the litigation. In view of above said discussion, present complaint dismissed. File be consigned to the record-room. 8. The learned counsel for the applicant has been confronted with the exceptions mentioned in Section 499 of IPC, specifically 5th exception, 8th exception and 9th exception. In view of above said discussion, present complaint dismissed. File be consigned to the record-room. 8. The learned counsel for the applicant has been confronted with the exceptions mentioned in Section 499 of IPC, specifically 5th exception, 8th exception and 9th exception. The learned counsel for the applicant has failed to satisfy this Court as to how he can come out from these exceptions so as to claim defamation. When an accusation is made in good faith to an authorised person or lawful authority with respect to a subject matter of accusation, then such an action is specifically covered under the exceptions. It will not be treated as an accusation amounting to defamation. When a criminal or civil case is decided by a Court of justice on merit, the allegations levelled in the course of trial also do not make out a case for defamation. Mere disposal of a case not accepting the accusation does not make out a case of defamation. 9. In view of above, being devoid of merit, the present application is dismissed. --------0.B.S.0------------