Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 572 (UTT)

Sultan Singh Rawat v. State of Uttarakhand

2013-09-02

U.C.DHYANI

body2013
JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. The applicants, by means of present application / petition under Section 482 of Cr. P.C., seek to quash the proceedings of criminal case no. 384 of 2007, Dayal Singh vs Sultan Singh and others, under Sections 109, 181, 182, 193, 211, 465, 468, 469 and 500 of IPC, police station Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal. 2) Complainant Dayal Singh Rawat and others faced a criminal trial in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Kotdwar, Garhwal, which trial was initiated at the behest of Sultan Singh and others. Dayal Singh Rawat and others were exonerated by learned Magistrate, vide judgment and order dated 07.03.2007. By way of criminal complaint no. 384 of 2007, it was alleged by the complainant that his image was tarnished, his reputation was harmed and he was defamed by the accused persons (applicants herein). After recording statements under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr. P.C., accused-applicants Sultan Singh, Ravindra Singh and Kamla Devi were summoned by learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Kotdwar, Garhwal to face the trial for the offences punishable under Sections 181, 182, 468, 469 and 500 of IPC, vide judgment and order dated 30.10.2007. Aggrieved against the same, present application under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. was moved by the applicants. 3) It may be made clear at the very outset that no complaint was filed by or at the instance of learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Kotdwar, Garhwal while delivering the judgment on 07.03.2007. Sub-Section (1) of Section 195 of Cr. P.C. says that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code except on the complaint in writing by that Court or by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorize in writing in this behalf, or by some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. Summoning of the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 181 and 182 of IPC is, therefore, per se illegal. 4) ‘Forgery’ is defined under Section 463 of IPC. Section 471 of IPC provides for the punishment when a forged document is used as genuine one. The cognizance of the said offences is also barred, except on the complaint in writing of that Court who was seized with the matter. 4) ‘Forgery’ is defined under Section 463 of IPC. Section 471 of IPC provides for the punishment when a forged document is used as genuine one. The cognizance of the said offences is also barred, except on the complaint in writing of that Court who was seized with the matter. In other words, the cognizance on the same could be taken only upon filing of a complaint by the Court where such document was produced in evidence. Here no such complaint was filed by the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Kotdwar. Accused persons were summoned for the offences punishable under Sections 468 IPC and 469 IPC also, without there being any prima facie evidence to show the same. The summoning of the accused persons under Sections 468 and 469 of IPC was also per se bad in the eyes of law. Section 468 IPC and Section 469 IPC in a way, are the species of Section 463 of IPC (genre). 5) If any person is put to trial and is exonerated of the charge levelled against him, it cannot always be said that that person was defamed at the instance of the informant / complainant, unless and until, the trial court gives a specific finding to this effect. The same happened in the instant case. Respondent no. 2 and others were put to trial at the instance of informant and others (applicants herein). Respondent no. 2 and others were acquitted of the charge leveled against them. Learned Judicial Magistrate, while delivering the judgment, did not give any categorical finding that a false case was instituted by the informant of that case against the accused persons. No complaint was filed or directed to be filed at the instance of Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Kotdwar either. It, therefore, cannot be said that the applicants defamed respondent no. 2. The ingredients of offence under Section 499 of IPC (punishable under Section 500 of IPC) are, therefore, also not made out against the accused-applicants. The only legal remedy, which was available to those, who were acquitted of the charge leveled against them, was to institute a suit for malicious prosecution, if so advised, and not a case of defamation. Interference is, thus, called for in the impugned judgment and order dated 30.10.2007. 6) The application under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. is, accordingly, allowed. Proceedings of criminal case no. Interference is, thus, called for in the impugned judgment and order dated 30.10.2007. 6) The application under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. is, accordingly, allowed. Proceedings of criminal case no. 384 of 2007, Dayal Singh vs Sultan Singh and others, under Sections 109, 181, 182, 193, 211, 465, 468, 469 and 500 of IPC, police station Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal are hereby quashed.