Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajesh Kumar vs Smt. Trishla Devi on 27 January, 2014
Author: K.C. Puri
Bench: K.C. Puri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM A-1056-MA of 2013 (O&M).
Date of Decision: 27.1.2014.
Rajesh Kumar
.... Applicant
Versus
Smt. Trishla Devi
.... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C. PURI
Present: Mr. H.S. Batth, Advocate,
for the applicant-appellant.
K.C. PURI.J (ORAL)
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 23.12.2011 passed by Ms. Amita Singh, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, vide which complaint preferred by Rajesh Kumar complainant appellant under Sections 499/500 IPC, Police Station Islamabad, Amritsar, was dismissed.
2. The case of the complainant is that he is working as A.C. Technician under AE, Amritsar and posted at Railway Station, Amritsar. He is residing in the accommodation provided in quarter No.358- B, Block-B, Railway Colony, Amritsar and accused is his wife. She does not have cordial relations with him and she is residing at her parental house at Dasuya. The brothers of accused tried to cause damage and loss to the life and property of complainant and one criminal case was also registered at Police Station Islamabad, Amritsar against her brothers. Accused has wrongly declared before the General Public that she was maltreated by the complainant for want of dowry and no criminal case has been registered against him till date. She wrote a letter to the Director (Vigilance) Northern Sanjay CRM A-1056-MA of 2013 (2) 2014.01.29 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Railway Headquarters Baroda House, New Delhi in which she alleged that complainant is staying in Railways Married Accommodation allotted to him in the said quarter and one other Railway employee Naresh Pal is also staying with his family with the complainant on sharing accommodation basis but he is claiming house rent from the railways. It has further been alleged that all the occupants of that locality are paying approximately Rs.450/- per month as electricity and water bills while the complainant under the influence of Member of Uttari Railways Mazdoor Union, is paying Rs.100/- per month. She has further alleged that the complainant has kept 3-4 buffaloes/cows in the said colony which is spreading nuisance and pollution. A thorough inquiry was conducted by the Director (Vigilance) Railways and all the allegations were found to be false. The said letter was issued with an intention to cause imputation on the character of the complainant with a view to defame him. Hence, the complaint.
3. In the preliminary evidence, the complainant examined himself as CW-1, Beant Singh as CW-2 and closed the evidence. The accused was summoned to face trial under Sections 499/500 IPC.
4. After appearance of the accused, the complainant examined himself as CW-1, Beant Singh as CW-2 and closed the evidence.
5. Thereafter, notice under Section 500 IPC was served upon the accused to which she did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
6. Thereafter, the complainant examined himself as CW-1, Beant Singh as CW-2 and closed the post charge evidence.
7. Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded in which all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused to CRM A-1056-MA of 2013 (3) Sanjay 2014.01.29 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court which she denied and pleaded false implication.
8. Learned trial Court after appraisal of the evidence, dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused.
9. Feeling dis-satisfied with the judgment dated 23.12.2011, the present appeal has been filed.
10. Along with the appeal, an application bearing CRM No. 49664 of 2013 for condonation of delay of 632 days in filing the appeal was moved. An application for allowing the grant of leave to appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C was also moved.
11. Against the order dated 23.12.2011, the appellant filed criminal appeal No. 3664 of 2012 which was decided on 7.10.2013.
12. Learned Additional Sessions Judge after discussing the law reached at the conclusion that the appeal before the Sessions Judge is not maintainable and consequently, an appeal lies to this Court only.
13. There is no dispute to the preposition that in a complaint case, appeal lies to this Court and not to the Court of Session. Since the time has been consumed in pursuing appeal before the Court of Session so, the delay in filing the present appeal stands condoned.
14. However, learned trial Court reached at the conclusion that the complaint which is said to be defamatory has not been proved on the file.
15. Learned counsel for the appellant is fair enough to concede that such complaint has not been proved on the file. In the absence of any complaint, the complainant could not prove what the defamatory matter was circulated by the wife against her husband. The other ground CRM A-1056-MA of 2013 (4) Sanjay 2014.01.29 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court taken by the trial Court is that a wife can avail the legal remedies available to her and in respect of that complaint, no defamation case can be instituted. Both these contentions remain unassailable as the alleged defamatory complaint has not been proved on the file and also the wife is competent to raise grievance against the husband regarding her ill-treatment.
16. In view of above discussion, the application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C for grant of leave to appeal is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed.
27.1.2014. (K.C. PURI)
SN JUDGE
Sanjay
2014.01.29 11:01
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Punjab and Haryana High Court