Delhi District Court
Surinder Kumar vs State on 20 October, 2007
-: 1 :-
IN THE COURT OF SHRI V.P. VAISH, ASJ, ROHINI, DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 118/06
Date of hearing arguments: 20.10.2007
Surinder Kumar,
S/o Shri Radhey Shyam,
R/o H.No. 68, Village Shakkarpur,
East Delhi - 110092 ...... Petitioner
Versus
State .... Respondent
------------------------------
ORDER
1. This revision petition is directed against an order dated 26.08.2006, passed by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini Courts, Delhi.
2. The backdrop of the present revision petition are that the petitioner filed a complaint for the offence under Section 211/500/34 IPC against the respondent. In brief the case of the petitioner is that he was married with Smt. Prem Lata / accused No.1 on 12.03.2002, parties could not live together. Accused No.1 Smt. Prem Lata lodged a false complaint with CAW Cell and FIR No. 1062 of 2002 under Section 498- A/406 IPC was registered at PS Uttam Nagar. The petitioner, his mother and two bhabis got an order of anticipatory bail vide order dated 05.02.2003. Thereafter Smt. Prem Lata moved an application dated 14.02.2003 for cancellation of bail. In the said application, she alleged -: 2 :- that on 05.02.2003 she (complainant) came to Tis Hazari Court for opposing the application for bail, at about 9.45 a.m. when she reached at gate No.1 of Tis Hazari Courts, suddenly petitioner Surinder Kumar and Jitender Kumar went near her and three other persons also came there who surrounded her and detained her. The petitioner Surinder Kumar, Jitender Kumar and one other person showed knife and threatened her. She lodged a report with PP Tis Hazari. The said application was dismissed vide order dated 23.09.2003. Thereafter the petitioner who is husband of Smt. Prem Lata filed a complaint case for the offence under Section 211/500/34 IPC. The petitioner examined himself as CW-1 and Shri Jitender Kumar as CW-2 and closed pre-summoning evidence. After hearing the petitioner and considering the allegations made by the petitioner, the complaint was dismissed vide impugned order dated 26.08.2006.
3. Feeling aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition. Nobody has appeared on behalf of petitioner on 19.07.2007, 08.08.2007, 07.09.2007, 22.09.2007 and 06.10.2007. I have heard Shri N.S. Kadyan, Ld. Addl PP for the State and also carefully perused the material on record.
4. The petitioner has taken a ground that no judicial proceedings had taken place on the police report and, therefore, the complaint was not barred under Section 195 Cr.P.C. According to the petitioner the allegations made in the complaint and sworn testimony of the petitioner have to be seen at their face value at the time of issuance of process. The other ground taken by the petitioner is that offence under Section -: 3 :- 211 IPC is made out and learned trial Court has wrongly came to the conclusion that the case would fall within the ambit of Section 182 Cr.P.C.
5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the ground taken by the petitioner in the revision petition. The petitioner had filed complaint under Section 211/500 IPC. It is settled law that there should be making or publication of imputation against any person either by words or by signs or by visible representations. Such imputation must have been made or published with the intention of harming or with the knowledge or having reason to believe that it will harm the reputation of such person. Mere making of imputation is not enough. The petitioner has to prove with imputation was defamatory and was intended to be read by other persons or that it was published. In the instant cased there is nothing on record to show that Smt. Prem Lata and other persons against whom the complaint was filed published or circulated the copy of complaint made at police post Tis Hazari Court or the same was sent to any relative, friends or public at large with the intention to cause harm to the reputation of the petitioner.
6. As regards the offence under Section 211 IPC it may be mentioned that Section 195 (1) (b) (i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 193 to 196 (both inclusive), Section 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and Section 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, except on the complaint in writing of that Court, or by some other Court to which -: 4 :- that Court is subordinate. On bare perusal of sub-section (b) of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is manifestly clear that it specifically bars taking cognizance of the offences mentioned in clause (1) of Section (b) of Section 195 Cr.P.C. The legislature in its wisdom has used the word 'in relation to' in sub-section (b) of Section 195 of the Code which shows that it covers offences allegedly committed in relation to the proceedings instituted in the Court. In the instant case Smt. Prem Lata against whom the present complaint was filed moved an application for cancellation of bail on the basis of complaint made at police post Tis Hazari. The complaint for the offence under Section 211 IPC is barred by Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by learned trial Court.
7. As a result of above discussion revision petition fails, same deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. Trial Court record alongwith copy of this order be sent back. File of revision petition be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Court (V.P. VAISH)
Dated: 20.10.2007 ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
ROHINI: DELHI