Delhi District Court
Ms. Neetika And Ors vs Vikas Gill on 30 November, 2023
:: 1 ::
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHAIL JAIN
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Crl. (R). 13/2022
1. Neetika
D/o Sh. Om Prakash Panghal
W/o Vikas Gill
2. Mrs. Phoolwati
W/o Sh. Om Prakash Panghal
Both R/o 1482, Urban Estate,
Jind, Haryanan.
3. Puneet Panghal
S/o Sh. Om Prakash Panghal
R/o 236, Defence Colony,
Hissar, Haryana-125001.
.....Revisionists
VERSUS
Vikas Gill
S/o Sh. Dalip Singh Gill
Manager Law
Steel Authority of India Limited
17th Floor, Core-2, Scope Minar,
Laxmi Nagar,
Delhi-110092.
.....Respondent
Date of Institution : 20.01.2022
Date of Arguments : 01.11.2023
Date of Judgment : 30.11.2023
Crl. (R) 13/2022
Neetika & Ors. vs. Vikas Gill Page 1 of 8
:: 2 ::
JUDGMENT
1. Revisionists have filed present revision petition against respondent/complainant challenging impugned orders dated 24.01.2020 and 27.03.2021 passed by Ld. MM-04, East District, Karkardooma Courts whereby accused persons/revisionists herein have been ordered to be summoned.
2. Fact leading to filing of present revision petition are that complainant/respondent herein has filed a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against accused persons/revisionists namely (1) Ms. Neetika (2) Mrs. Phool Wati and (3) Puneet Panghal alleging that revisionist no.1 Neetika is wife of the respondent/complainant and she had got registered an FIR under Section 498-A/406 IPC against respondent and his family members regarding demand of dowry and harassment on account thereof. She has also filed an application under Section 12 of D.V. Act and an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against complainant and his family members. The factum of registration of FIR, arrest of the complainant and his family members was got published in several newspapers and news in this regard was also flashed on the T.V. channels. False complaints, including letter dated 12.10.2015 alongwith copy of the FIR and newspaper cuttings were sent to employer of respondent. Even the revisionists had visited office of the respondent and created scene in the office imputing various false allegations to him in presence of his colleagues and said acts of the revisionist have lowered reputation of the respondent. Hence, the complaint was filed.
Crl. (R) 13/2022 Neetika & Ors. vs. Vikas Gill Page 2 of 8 :: 3 ::
After pre-summoning evidence and hearing Ld. Counsel for the complainant, vide impugned order dated 24.01.2020, Ld.Trial Court ordered to summon revisionists herein and vide impugned order dated 27.03.2021, fresh summons were ordered to be issued to revisionists, as summons sent to the revisionists before lock-down period were not received back. Being aggrieved with summoning orders, the revisionists have filed present revision with the prayer to set aside the impugned orders.
3. Notice of revision was issued to the respondent, respondent put in appearance. No reply has been filed on behalf of respondent.
4. Ld. Counsel for the revisionists has argued that their case is covered under Exception Ninth of Section 499 IPC, hence, they could not have been summoned and impugned orders are liable to be set-aside. Reliance has been placed on various judgments :
(i) Malancha Mohinta vs. Dipak Mohinta MANU/WB/0470/2020. (ii) Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & rs. (1998) 5 SCC 749. (iii) Harbhajan Singh vs. State of Punjab AIR 1966 SC 97. (iv) Punjab National Bank vs. Surender Prasad Sinha, 1993 Supp (1) SCC 499. (v) Subramanian Swamy vs. Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 221.
5. Ld. Counsel for the respondent has argued and has also filed written arguments submitting that various false cases were Crl. (R) 13/2022 Neetika & Ors. vs. Vikas Gill Page 3 of 8 :: 4 ::
got registered by revisionist no. 1 against the respondent, the revisionists visited the office of respondent and created scene there by imputing false allegations to respondent. It is further argued that revisionists have also sent defamatory letters to the office of respondent. They also got published the registration of cases against the revisionist and arrest of the respondent and his family members in the newspapers. It is further submitted that act of the revisionists was defamatory, therefore, a complaint was filed by the respondent against revisionists in which, they have been ordered to be summoned on the basis of evidence on record. It is further submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned orders and revision is liable to be dismissed. Reliance has been placed on the following judgments :
(i) M.A. Ramugam vs. Kittu & Krishnamoorthy (Crl.
Appeal No. 1749 of 2008) decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 07.11.2008.
(ii) Raghav Chadha vs. State & Anr. (Crl. M.C. No. 2570/2017 decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 25.09.2017).
6. I have considered arguments advanced by Ld. Counsels for the parties. I have carefully considered judgments relied upon by both the parties and impugned orders passed by Ld. Trial Court and the material available on record.
7. Present revision has been filed by the revisionist against orders dated 24.01.2020 and 27.03.2021 whereby accused persons (revisionists herein) have been ordered to be summoned Crl. (R) 13/2022 Neetika & Ors. vs. Vikas Gill Page 4 of 8 :: 5 ::
for offence under Section 500 IPC. Present revision petition has been filed by the revisionists basically on the ground that no case is made out under Section 500 IPC against the revisionists herein, as they are covered under Ninth Exception of Section 499 IPC. Other ground taken by the revisionists for challenging the impugned orders is that cases filed by revisionist no.1 against respondent/complainant are still pending and have not yet attained finality. Various judgments have been mentioned by the revisionists while discussing the grounds on which impugned orders are challenged by the revisionists. In nutshell, the case of the revisionists is that impugned orders are liable to be set-aside as act of the revisionists falls within Ninth Exception of Section 499 IPC and therefore, no summoning order could have been passed against them. It is also case of the revisionists that complainant has tried to mislead the Court by levelling false allegations. When matters between the parties are still pending and have not reached to the conclusion, therefore, impugned orders passed by Ld. Trial Court should be set-aside.
8. After considering the submissions of Ld. Counsels for the parties and grounds specially taken by the revisionists, which were denied by the respondent's counsel during arguments, I am of the opinion that whether case of the revisionists is covered by Ninth Exception of Section 499 IPC or not can only be decided after opportunity to lead evidence is given to the parties. It would be for the revisionists to prove before Ld. Trial Court that their case squarely falls within Ninth Exception of Section 499 Crl. (R) 13/2022 Neetika & Ors. vs. Vikas Gill Page 5 of 8 :: 6 ::
IPC. For better understanding, Ninth Exception of Section 499 IPC is reproduced hereinunder :
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.
9. From bare reading of Ninth Exception, it is clear that any act done in 'good faith' will be covered by this Exception in view of Section 499 IPC. Therefore, as per law, any act, action or word, complained of, to be of defamatory nature, if proved, by the accused to have been uttered/written/used in good faith for protection of his or other's interests will fall under Ninth Exception and therefore, Section 500 IPC will not be attracted. However, unless opportunity is given to the parties to lead their evidence, it would not be possible for the Court to determine whether action, act or word was used by the accused in 'good faith' or not. Therefore, I am of the opinion that at the time of considering pre-summoning evidence of the complainant, Ld. Trial Court cannot reach to a conclusion that action complained of, is not covered by Section 500 IPC but falls under Exceptions, specially Ninth Exception of Section 499 IPC. It has been categorically mentioned by Ld. Trial Court that complainant in his pre-summoning evidence has stated that his reputation was tarnished by the act of the revisionists. Case of the complainant Crl. (R) 13/2022 Neetika & Ors. vs. Vikas Gill Page 6 of 8 :: 7 ::
has been supported by the evidence of CW-2 and CW-3, who are his co-workers.
10. Coming to judgments relied upon by the revisionists:-
(a) Judgment of 'Malancha Mohinta vs. Dipak Mohinta' (supra) is on the point of limitation for action under section 500 IPC, however, no issue of limitation is raised in this case. Hence, this judgment does not help the revisionists.
(b) Judgment of 'Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors.' (supra) reiterates the requirements of law of summoning. In present case, proper procedure has been followed by Ld. Trial Court for summoning the revisionists, so this judgment also does not render any help to the revisionists.
(c) Judgment of 'Harbhajan Singh vs. State of Punjab' (supra) is on the point of consideration of conviction, which is not the stage in this case, hence, this judgment is also of no help to the revisionists.
(d) Judgment of 'Punjab National Bank & Ors. vs. Surendra Prasad Sinha' (supra) pertains to issuance of process after due consideration of facts. Therefore, this judgment is not relevant here.
(e) Judgment of 'Subramanian Swamy vs. Union of India' (supra) is on constitutional validity of Section 499 & Section 500 IPC, which is not the issue in the present matter. Hence, none of these judgments renders any assistance to the revisionists.
11. Coming to judgment of M.A.Ramugam vs. Kittu (supra) relied upon by the respondent, this judgment is on the point that 8th and 9th exceptions have to be proved before quashing the Crl. (R) 13/2022 Neetika & Ors. vs. Vikas Gill Page 7 of 8 :: 8 ::
complaint. This judgment squarely covers the present case. Case set up by the complainant and defence raised by the revisionists can be proved only by way of leading evidence.
12. In view of my above discussion, I am of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the impugned orders while summoning the revisionists. Revision is devoid of any merits. Same is hereby dismissed.
13. Trial Court record be sent back with copy of this order.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally
signed by
SHAIL SHAIL JAIN
Date:
JAIN 2023.11.30
17:01:54
+0530
Announced in the open court (Shail Jain)
th
today on 30 November, 2023 Principal District & Sessions Judge
East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Crl. (R) 13/2022
Neetika & Ors. vs. Vikas Gill Page 8 of 8