Punjab-Haryana High Court
Court On Its Own Motion vs U.T. Administration And Others on 9 January, 2013
Bench: A.K. Sikri, Rakesh Kumar Jain
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
R.A. No.2 of 2013 in
CM No.18202 of 2010 in
CWP No.18253 of 2009
DATE OF DECISION: January 09, 2013
Court on its own motion
.....Petitioner
versus
U.T. Administration and others
.....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, JUDGE
Present: Mr.Prit Pal Sodhi, applicant in person
..
A.K. SIKRI, CHIEF JUSTICE
1. The petitioner has been repeatedly urging that proceedings in complaint filed against him under Sections 499/500 IPC for criminal defamation be quashed. We have already communicated in our order dated 18.12.2012 that summons have been issued in those proceedings by the concerned Magistrate by passing judicial orders and such an order can be challenged only under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and not in the present PIL. Therefore, we do not find any reason to review order dated 18.12.2012.
2 At the same time, we would like to remark that the issue raised in the present petition pertains to Sukhna Lake and during the course of the proceedings, applicant made certain utterances against the complainant which provoked the complainant to file the said complaint. The applicant is about 75 years of age. Further, he appears to be a public-spirited person, who has taken up the cause of saving Sukhna RA-2-2013 -2- Lake with all earnestness and passion. His attempts show bona fides in his approach and cannot be questioned. We, therefore, feel that the better course of action would be that the complainant and applicant mutually discuss the matter to arrive at a negotiated settlement. It would be appropriate that the matter is sent to mediation for this purpose. Since complainant is not before us, we impress upon the learned Magistrate to explore the possibility of referring the matter to Mediation by impressing upon both the parties for this course of action.
3. Application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
( A.K. SIKRI )
CHIEF JUSTICE
January 09, 2013 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN)
pc JUDGE
2