Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 50 (HP)

Dinesh Chander Sharma v. Baldev Chand

2020-01-03

ANOOP CHITKARA

body2020
JUDGMENT : Anoop Chitkara, J. Challenging the dismissal of Criminal Revision by the Sessions Court, Una, wherein he had upheld the order of dismissal of complaint by the Judicial Magistrate, under Section 203 of CrPC, the complainant, who is a practicing Advocate, has come up before this Court, seeking directions for issuance of process under Section 204 CrPC, by setting aside the impugned orders. 2. The gist of the case, apposite to decide the present controversy, originates from a complaint dated Dec 7, 2010, filed by the petitioner, under Section 190(1)(a) CrPC, against Baldev Chand, respondent herein. 3. The complainant stated in his complaint that in the year 2000, the accused Baldev Chand was serving as Personal Assistant (P.A.), to the Deputy Commissioner, Una, HP. He further alleged that he wanted an appointment with the Deputy Commissioner, but he declined to meet. When he insisted on meeting the Deputy Commissioner, then the Deputy Commissioner assaulted him. After him, the respondent, as well as the Security Guard, also assaulted him. At the instance of the accused, the officials forcibly removed the complainant from the office of the Deputy Commissioner. 4. The petitioner being an Advocate in practice, approached the President, Bar Association Una, seeking his indulgence in defusing the controversy. On this the accused Baldev Chand, entered into a conspiracy, with his office Peon Joginder Singh, and in connivance with the office bearers of the employee’s union got a false FIR lodged against him. 5. The complainant further alleged that since the FIR was false as such, he prosecuted the said Deputy Commissioner and the respondent/accused by filing Complaint No. 68-I-2000/56-II-2000 and another case No. 82-II-2000 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una. The complainant further alleged that the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, issued process against the accused in both these complaints. 6. The complainant further states that the respondent challenged the issuance of summons by filing petitions in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, registered as Cr.MMO Nos. 143 of 2008, and Cr.MMO No. 100 of 2009. 7. The complainant further states that in Cr.MMO Nos. 143 of 2008, and 100 of 2009, the accused leveled defamatory allegations against him. He says that such defamatory allegations were that the complainant without any reason implicated the accused and that the evidence manufactured to harass the accused and that the allegations in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable. The complainant further states that in Cr.MMO Nos. 143 of 2008, and 100 of 2009, the accused leveled defamatory allegations against him. He says that such defamatory allegations were that the complainant without any reason implicated the accused and that the evidence manufactured to harass the accused and that the allegations in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable. The complainant further states that in the said Cr.MMO, the accused had also noted that the complaint was a counterblast to the FIR lodged against the complainant herein. 8. The complainant further stated that by leveling the allegations in the CrMMOs mentioned above, the accused had cast aspersion on the moral and intellectual character of the complainant, in the eyes of the Judges of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, who were most likely to hear the matter and thus committed an offence punishable under Section 500 IPC. 9. As per the endorsement on the complaint, the office of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, HP, received the complaint on Dec 7, 2010, and assigned it to the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Court No. II, Una, H.P. After assigning, the office registered the complaint as Cr. Case No. 205-I of 2010. Vide order dated Dec 9, 2010, the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No. II, Una, took cognizance of the offence and asked the complainant to produce preliminary evidence. 10. Vide order dated Feb 2, 2012, passed in Criminal Complaint No. 205-I of 2010, titled Dinesh Chander Sharma vs. Baldev Chand, the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Court No. II, Una, did not find the pleadings and allegations in the CrMMOs mentioned above, as defamatory, and refused to proceed further under Section 204 CrPC and accordingly dismissed the complaint under Section 203 CrPC. 11. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant challenged the said order by filing a Criminal Revision Petition before the Sessions Court, Una. Vide order dated Jul 21, 2016, passed in Criminal Revision No. 07/2012, 40/13, the Additional Sessions Judge (I), Una, HP, upheld the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Court No. II, Una, and dismissed the Revision Petition. 12. 11. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant challenged the said order by filing a Criminal Revision Petition before the Sessions Court, Una. Vide order dated Jul 21, 2016, passed in Criminal Revision No. 07/2012, 40/13, the Additional Sessions Judge (I), Una, HP, upheld the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Court No. II, Una, and dismissed the Revision Petition. 12. Challenging the dismissal of the Criminal Revision Petition and the order of dismissal of the complaint, the complainant/petitioner has come up before this Court by filing the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 CrPC, seeking setting aside of both the impugned orders, with directions to issue process against the accused, under Section 204 CrPC, seeking his prosecution. 13. I have heard petitioner Sh. Dinesh Chander Sharma, who argued in person and learned counsel appearing for the respondent. I have also waded through the entire record. ANALYSIS AND REASONING 14. I have perused the complaint filed by the petitioner, which was registered as Complaint No. 205-I of 2010. The allegations leveled in the said complaint do not make out any case for defamation. The pleadings are formal, which are drafted by lawyers. Accused may not even be aware of the contents of such pleadings. It can hardly be said that the accused would be aware of the consequences of such drafting. Even when pleadings amount to defamation still, the primary aspect to be noticed is whether it was the Counsel who had drafted such imputations or the signatory of the pleadings. In the present case, even if all pleadings are taken as a gospel truth still, they do not constitute any defamation. The intellectual character and the image of the petitioner/complainant did not reduce in the eyes of this Court. 15. I have gone through both the impugned orders which are self-explanatory and well-reasoned. 16. Given above, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. All pending applications, if any, are closed. Registry is directed to return the records forthwith.