Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kirpal Singh And Others vs Naib Singh on 11 August, 2009
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
Crl. Misc. No. M-49231 of 2007 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-49231 of 2007 (O&M)
Date of decision: August 11,2009
Kirpal Singh and others
.. Petitioners
v.
Naib Singh
.. Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mrs. Jaspal Kaur Gurna, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Manish Singla, Advocate for the respondent.
Rajesh Bindal J.
Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of criminal complaint under Sections 499/500 IPC and summoning order dated 14.10.2006, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib.
Briefly, the facts are that under a scheme framed by the Directorate of Youth Welfare and Nehru Yuvak Kendra to encourage sports activities in the villages, youth clubs were to be formed. In village Sidhwan also, youth club in the name of Shahid Udham Singh Sports Club was formed. In the year 2003, a cheque of Rs. 10,000/- was given to the club at Sangat Darshan at Amloh for the purpose of purchase of sports equipments for the players of the village. The cheque was received by the respondent, who happened to be the President of the club at the relevant time, though the amount was withdrawn from the bank, but no sports equipments having been purchased, the petitioners, who were residents of the village, became suspicious and sent an application to the Deputy Commissioner, Fatehgarh Sahib for making an enquiry as to where the amount was spent. The application was considered and on report, it was found that the amount was spent for construction of a shed at the bus stop. The application of the petitioners was filed. The petitioners being satisfied did not pursue the matter any further. However, the respondent did not digest the same and filed a complaint against the petitioners under Sections 499/500 IPC, in which the petitioners have been summoned to face trial. That is how the petitioners are before this Court seeking quashing of the complaint and all subsequent proceedings thereto.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that continuance of proceedings against the petitioners is nothing else but an abuse of process of law.
Crl. Misc. No. M-49231 of 2007 [2]Even on a plain reading of the complaint made by the respondent, no case has been made out against the petitioners for proceeding under Section 500 IPC. The complaint was made by the petitioners in good faith as vigilant residents of the village, where it was noticed that the amount, which was given to the club for purchase of sports equipments, had not been utilised for the purpose, though withdrawn from the bank. The fact that it was not used for purchase of sports equipments is not denied as admittedly the same was used for construction of a shed at the bus stop. As the amount was given by the government under a scheme, the Deputy Commissioner was the over-all supervising authority, being ex-officio Chairman of the club, to whom the complaint was made for enquiring as to whether the funds have been utilised properly or not. There was no intention to defame any person. The moment on enquiry the Deputy Commissioner found that the amount has been utilised for public good, though not for the purpose it was assigned, the petitioners felt satisfied. However, still the complaint was filed by the respondent. He further submitted that if the allegations in the complaint are read in conjunction with the provisions of Section 499 IPC, the case of the petitioners clearly falls within `Eight' and `Ninth' exceptions. Referring to the judgment of this Court in Harcharan Singh v. Hari Singh, 2002(1) RCR (Criminal) 393, it was submitted that even if a complaint made to a higher authority against a public servant is found to be false on enquiry, no offence of defamation is made out, as the object was to bring the facts to the notice of the higher authority. Still further, it was submitted that the reason of apprehension of the petitioners was that the respondent had earlier been convicted in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and one FIR under Section 420 IPC was also pending against him.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that invocation of jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is totally uncalled for. The issues, which are sought to be raised by the petitioners for seeking quashing of the complaint, are subject-matter of evidence, which is yet to be led and appreciated by the court below. After the petitioners had been summoned, the remedy was to file revision against the summoning order. There are specific allegations against the petitioners in the complaint, which fulfil the ingredients as are enumerated under Section 499 IPC. As to whether action of the petitioners was in good faith and bonafide or not is subject-matter of evidence. It has not been mentioned as to how the Deputy Commissioner was competent or the higher authority.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.
Crl. Misc. No. M-49231 of 2007 [3]The relevant provisions of Section 499 IPC are extracted below:
"499. Defamation. - Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person.
xx xx xx Eight Exception- Accusation preferred in good faith to authorised person. - It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject-matter of accusation. Ninth Exception.- Imputation made in good faith by person for protection of his or other's interests.- It is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another provided that the imputation be made in good faith for the protection of the interests of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good."
The fact that in terms of the scheme of the government a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was given by way of a cheque to the sports club formed in the village of which the respondent was the President at the relevant time is not disputed. It is also not disputed that the amount was meant to be spent for purchase of sports equipments. The same having not been spent for the purpose, the petitioners moved application to the Deputy Commissioner to enquire into the same. The contents of application dated 27.2.2004 addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Fatehgarh Sahib by the petitioners are as under:
" It is respectfully submitted that we are members of Shahid Udham Singh Sports Club (Regd. No. 1) village Sidhwan, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib. Our above named club had received a cheque of Rs. 10,000/- at Sangat Darshan Amloh which was given to purchase sports goods etc. for players. But till date no sports goods have been made available.
It is therefore requested through this application that an enquiry be got conducted as to where the above amount of Rs. 10,000/- received by Naib Singh President of the Club has been spent."
Thereafter, the matter was enquired into and the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib vide letter dated 20.8.2004 reported to the Deputy Commissioner that as per the resolution of the club, the amount in question was Crl. Misc. No. M-49231 of 2007 [4] used for the purpose of construction of a shed at the bus stop. The petitioners having come to know about the utilisation of the amount did not pursue the matter any further. A perusal of eight exception to Section 499 IPC shows that it is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject-matter of accusation. In terms of ninth exception, in case an imputation on the character of another person is made provided that the same is made in good faith for protection of the interest of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good does not amount to defamation. If the application made by the petitioners to the Deputy Commissioner is considered, it mentions that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- received by the club for purchase of sports equipments having not been spent for the purpose, the enquiry be made as to whether the amount has been spent by the President of the club, it cannot be said to be defamation before the public at large.
The bonafides of the petitioners is established from the fact that the facts stated by them in the application to the Deputy Commissioner regarding non- spending of the amount received for the purpose of purchase of sports equipments were found to be correct, as in fact the amount was spent for construction of a shed at the bus stop. The intention to cause harm is the very foundation of the offence under Section 499 IPC, which is punishable under Section 500 IPC. The intention is to be gathered from the accusation made in the communication. In the present case, the petitioners had only brought the facts to the notice of the competent authority, i.e., Deputy Commissioner as the government had given the grant for purchase of sports equipments. Similar view was expressed by this court in Harcharan Singh's case (supra), where order of dismissal of a complaint by the Magistrate under similar circumstances was upheld.
For the reasons mentioned above, the present petition is allowed. The impugned complaint filed by the respondent and all subsequent proceedings thereto are quashed.
(Rajesh Bindal)
Judge
August 11,2009
mk