Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1842 (PNJ)

COL. (RETD. ) RANBIR SINGH YADAV v. CHET RAM

2016-08-01

HARI PAL VERMA

body2016
JUDGMENT : HARI PAL VERMA, J. CRM-28939-2016 1. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay of 25 days in filing the present application under Section 378(4) Cr.PC for grant of leave to appeal. 2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 250 days in filing the application under Section 378(4) Cr.PC for grant of leave to appeal is condoned. CRM-A-1503-MA-2015 3. The applicant has filed present application under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of leave to appeal against the order dated 2.5.2015 passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rewari. 4. Briefly stated, the applicant has filed a criminal complaint under Sections 499 and 500 IPC against the respondent. As per the complaint, the applicant is an old aged Ex-Army Officer with permanent disability, but commanding respect in the society for his achievements while in the Army. The respondent in order to harm the reputation of the applicant in the eyes of the society had submitted a false complaint to the police. On account of this complaint, the applicant was made to appear before the police official as if he is a culprit which was necessarily humiliating and stressful. The complaint was filed with an intention to tarnish reputation of the applicant in the eyes of the society and to defame the applicant. The allegation against the applicant is that he has trespassed to the plot and has cut a green tree from the field of the respondent. Since the allegation was false and defamatory, the applicant served a legal notice to the respondent. Thus, the respondent has committed the offence of defamation as defined in Section 500 IPC. 5. In support of his complaint submitted by the applicant, the applicant examined PW1 Anil, PW2 Devender Singh, PW3 Rajesh Kumar, Advocate, PW4 Major Ashok Yadav, PW5 Tejpal, PW6 Lal Chand ASI and himself as PW7. Besides this, he tendered documents i.e. complaint dated 28.8.2010 Ex.PW5/1, police proceedings Ex.PW5/2 to Ex.PW5/3, legal notice Ex.PW7/1, post receipt Ex.PW7/2 and copy of letter Ex.PX. 6. The trial Court did not find any substance in the complaint so as to summon the respondent-accused as no criminal proceedings in the shape of registration of a criminal case were initiated against the applicant-complainant. 6. The trial Court did not find any substance in the complaint so as to summon the respondent-accused as no criminal proceedings in the shape of registration of a criminal case were initiated against the applicant-complainant. The allegation that on the basis of complaint submitted by the respondent, the applicant was questioned by the police, learned Magistrate has observed that once a complaint has come to the notice of the police, it is duty of the police to ascertain the facts. There was no allegation on the part of the complainant that the police has acted in contravention of rules or any false case was registered against the complainant. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is a retired and decorated Army person carrying physical disability. The respondent has moved a false complaint to the SHO concerned. He has contended that even if the FIR has not been registered, the applicant had to undergo unnecessary harassment and humiliation as the police has called him to the Police Station. The respondent has intentionally made a false complaint to the police just to harm the reputation of the applicant. From the bare reading of the reply to the legal notice sent by the applicant, it would reveal that the accused has re-asserted the allegations levelled against the applicant. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant. 9. In order to proceed in the case i.e. for summoning, the Court has to assess the relevant material. However, the trial Court did not find any substance in the complaint made by the applicant-complainant for summoning the respondent primarily on the ground that no criminal proceedings were initiated in the shape of registration of a criminal case. Merely because the respondent has filed a complaint to the police and a consequence thereof, the police has questioned the applicant, this act does not fall within the ambit of Section 500 IPC. The applicant has not been able to establish that in what manner, filing of complaint by the respondent has harmed the reputation of the applicant. 10. In view of the above, this Court does not find any merit in the present application as there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by learned Magistrate which may warrant interference of this Court. Accordingly, affirming the impugned order dated 2.5.2015 passed by learned trial Court, the present application is dismissed.