Delhi District Court
Mahesh Chand Rajput vs (1) Kallu Ram on 29 September, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SH. YASHWANT KUMAR
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, SHAHDARA,
KARKARDOOMA, DELHI
CR No. 81/16
(Old CR No. 27/15)
Mahesh Chand Rajput
S/o Sh. Jagdish Singh
R/o House No. 256, Village Karkardooma
Delhi-110092
.....Revisionist
Versus
(1) Kallu Ram
S/o Sh. Babu Ram
R/o House No.258, Village Karkardooma
Delhi-110092
(2) Rakesh Kumar
Sh. Babu Ram
R/o House No.258, Village Karkardooma
Delhi-110092
....Respondents
Date of institution : 07.05.2015
Date of arguments : 28.09.2020
Date of Order : 29.09.2020
ORDER
1. The present revision petition was taken up for hearing arguments and for disposal through Video Conference Hearing on Cisco WebEx in pursuance of the directions issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi due to pandemic of Covid-19.
2. Vide this Order, I shall dispose off the aforesaid revision petition u/s 397 CrPC preferred by the revisionist against the impugned order dated 13.08.2014, passed in CC No. 110/11 by the Ld. ACMM, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, whereby Ld. Trial Court Cr. Rev. No.81/16 Mahesh Chand Rajput Vs. Kallu Ram & Anr. Page No. 1 of 7 summoned the revisionist-herein/accused-therein for the offence punishable u/s 500 IPC.
3. The brief facts, as set out in the present revision petition, are that the complainants-therein / respondents herein had filed the above mentioned complaint case u/s 200 CrPC against the revisionist- herein/accused-therein and other accused persons before the Ld. Trial Court with the allegations revisionist-herein/accused-therein and other accused persons with intention to defame and harm their reputation, hatched a criminal conspiracy and caused mental injury and harassment to them and affixed representation dt.12.01.2011 on the front wall of Shiv Mandir at Village Karkardooma, Delhi-92. The contents of the said representation was defamatory and after reading the contents of the same, several persons started keeping distance from the complainants-therein and also came to enquire whether they are involved in the criminal activities. Complainant alleged that due to the action of the revisionist- herein, he was defamed in the society, suffered loss in the business which caused him harassment and mental agony as well as financial losses. After examination of complainant and other witnesses as CW1 to CW6 before the Ld. Trial Court, Ld. Trial Court passed the impugned order dt. 13.08.2014.
4. Aggrieved by the said impugned order, the revisionist has preferred the present revision petition on the following grounds among others that vide the impugned order dt. 13.08.2014 the Ld. Trial Court summoned the accused-therein/ revisionist in the absence of cognizance. The impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground of non- compliance of Section 190 of CrPC. The revisionist relied upon the judgment in the case of Nupur Talwar vs. CBI 2012(2) SCC 188. There Cr. Rev. No.81/16 Mahesh Chand Rajput Vs. Kallu Ram & Anr. Page No. 2 of 7 was no material available on record to summon the revisionist as the essential ingredients for the offence of defamation i.e. knowledge and belief are entirely missing and the intention on the part of the revisionist to harm the reputation of the respondents is also missing. The impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground that exceptions Eighth, Nineth and Tenth which are provided u/s 499 of IPC escaped the attention of the Ld. Trial Court. It was admitted by the respondent No. 2 who was examined as CW2 before the Ld. Trial Court on 02.03.2013, whereby police officials book him u/s 28/112 of D.P. Act on the basis of representation made by the revisionist to SDM (Vivek Vihar) which was forwarded to DCP (East) for taking immediate necessary action. The complaint case was filed with intention to revenge as the revisionist has filed a complaint case. The revisionist in his revision petition referred the judgment in the case of Pepsi Foods Limited Versus Special Judicial Magistrate 1998(5) SCC 749. The impugned order is silent on the aspect that respondent No.2 was booked u/s 28/122 of D.P. Act. The revisionist has also taken the ground that the correctness, legality and propriety is the very foundation for the exercise of revisional jurisdiction as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kapoor Versus Ramesh Chandra 2012 (3) SCC Crl.986. The allegations leveled in the complaint as well as in the pre-summoning evidence recorded before the Ld. trial court are patently absurd and highly improbable. The Revisionist cannot be prosecuted for vicarious liability as no offence as alleged by the respondent neither in the complaint nor in his pre- summoning evidence. The revisionist has prayed to set aside the impugned order dt. 13.08.2014 passed by the Ld. Trial Court.
Cr. Rev. No.81/16 Mahesh Chand Rajput Vs. Kallu Ram & Anr. Page No. 3 of 7
5. The Ld. Counsel for the parties have stated that this revision petition may be decided on the basis of their written arguments. I have gone through the written arguments filed on behalf of the parties and said impugned order dt. 13.08.2014 and also as materials available on record.
6. In the written arguments filed on behalf of the revisionist, Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has stated that the delay in filing the present revision petition is neither intentional nor deliberate and he has already filed a separate application for condonation of delay in filing the present revision petition in which the reasons for delay have been given. The Ld. Trial Court without taking cognizance of offence issued summon in arbitrary manner. There was no material available on record to summon the revisionist as the essential ingredients for the offence of defamation i.e. knowledge and belief are entirely missing and the intention on the part of the revisionist to harm the reputation of the respondents is also missing. The Eighth, Ninth and Tenth exceptions of Section 499 IPC is applied in this case. It is not defamation to prefer in good faith and accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject matter of the application and further it is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another provided that the imputation be made in good faith and for the protection of interest of the person making it, of any other person, or for the public good. The respondent has concealed the fact that he has never obtained the license from the concerned authority to run a sweet shop. A kalandra u/s 28/112 of D.P. Act was also initiated against the respondent. The Ld. Trial Court without considering the evidence and without having no material on record regarding affixation of material as alleged by the respondents, issued summons, which is not tenable in the eyes of law. Therefore, the Cr. Rev. No.81/16 Mahesh Chand Rajput Vs. Kallu Ram & Anr. Page No. 4 of 7 impugned order is liable to be dismissed.
7. In the written arguments filed on behalf of the respondents, Ld. Counsel for the respondents stated that in the entire application for condonation of delay, the revisionist has not disclosed anywhere that when he got the summon for appearance. It is settled proposition of law that the limitation for challenging any order, commence from the date of knowledge but not from the date when first time the appearance is given before the Hon'ble Court. In the instant case, the revisionist has not given any explanation for condonation of delay from the date of summoning order dated 13.08.2014 and even the explanation given for condonation of delay for 279 days is highly unjustified on face of record. It is nowhere mentioned that when the revisionist applied to get the certified copy of the impugned order and when the certified copy was obtained. There is no justified explanation for condonation of delay and thereby the present revision is liable to be dismissed on this ground itself. The present revision petition is liable to be dismissed as the revisionist has not made "The State" as one of a respondent. As per the statement given by the respondent no.2 before the Ld. Trial Court, a clear case for the offence u/s 500 IPC is made out and the contents of representation/letter dated 12.01.2011, which was circulated in the office of different government authorities and was affixed on the wall of the Mandir at village Karkardooma, is highly defamatory which was intentionally written by the revisionist in order to badly harm the reputation of the respondent no.2- therein. That letter was written with the sole motive to harm the reputation of the respondent-herein. In the written arguments, the Ld. Counsel for the respondent has referred the judgment in the cases of Rajesh Talwar Vs. CBI and stated that at the time of summoning to accused, it has to be seen Cr. Rev. No.81/16 Mahesh Chand Rajput Vs. Kallu Ram & Anr. Page No. 5 of 7 whether there are sufficient material on file to proceed against the accused but not whether the evidence available on file are sufficient to convict an accused. Ld. Counsel for the respondent further referred the citations of the cases i.e. 1982, RLR 607 and AIR, 1968, Bombay 39.
8. Perusal of record reveals that complaint case u/s 200 CrPC was filed before the Ld. Trial Court on 16.12.2011. The complainants- therein/respondents-herein examined themselves as CW1 and CW2 and their neighbour as CW3 apart from Sh.Dalip Singh as CW3, Raj Kumar, Bailiff as CW4, HC Kapil Kumar as CW5 and Ct. Hansraj as CW6 before the Ld. Trial Court. The complainants deposed on the same lines of their complaint. The revisionist has taken the main ground in the revision petition that he was summoned by the Ld. Trial Court in the absence of cognizance. There is a non-compliance of Section 190 CrPC. The allegations are absurd and highly improbable. The Eighth, Nineth and Tenth exceptions of Section 499 IPC are applicable in this case which escaped the attention of the Ld. Trial Court. The impugned order is also silent on the aspect that respondent No.2 was booked under Section 28/122 of D.P. Act. The revisionist cannot be prosecuted for vicarious liability. The Ld. ACMM has to carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record and examine if any offence is prima facie committed by the accused. The essential ingredients for the offence of defamation i.e. knowledge and belief are entirely missing and the intention on the part of the revisionist to harm the reputation of the respondent is also missing. Whereas, the respondents have opposed the grounds taken by the revisionist in the revision petition that contents of the representation dt.12.01.2011 affixed on the wall of Mandir is highly defamatory which was intentionally written by the revisionist to the SDC and DCP (East) in Cr. Rev. No.81/16 Mahesh Chand Rajput Vs. Kallu Ram & Anr. Page No. 6 of 7 order to badly harm the reputation of the respondent in the eyes of government agencies. Further, at the time of summoning to the accused, it has to be seen whether there are sufficient material on file to proceed against the accused but not whether the evidence available on file are sufficient to convict the accused. In view of the above facts and circumstances, written arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the parties and the above judgments relied upon, I am of the considered opinion that criminal complaint was filed against the revisionist for the offence u/s 323/500 IPC. Ld. ACMM after going through the testimony of complainants/CW1 & CW2, their neighbour CW3 and also CW4 to CW6 and having found the sufficient material on record to prosecute the proposed accused as accused, the revisionist was summoned as an accused only u/s 500 IPC. The judgments relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist are distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order dt.13.08.2014 passed by the Ld. Trial Court. Accordingly, this revision petition is devoid of any merits and the same is dismissed. TCR along with the copy of this Order be sent to the Ld. Trial Court. Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by YASHWANT YASHWANT KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2020.09.29
17:41:08 -0400
Announced through video
Conference during (YASHWANT KUMAR)
pandemic of Covid-19 Principal District & Sessions Judge
on 29th day of September 2020 Shahdara, KKD Courts, Delhi
Cr. Rev. No.81/16 Mahesh Chand Rajput Vs. Kallu Ram & Anr. Page No. 7 of 7