Delhi District Court
Gurpreet Kaur vs Sushil Kumar Chadha on 18 January, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ATUL KUMAR GARG: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE-03 (CENTRAL), DELHI
CR No. 124/13
Gurpreet Kaur
W/o Manish Chadha
D/o Sh. Mahinder Singh,
R/o U-23/2, Ground Floor,
Pink Town House,
DLF Phase -III, Gurgoan,
Haryana -122002.
... Appellant
Versus
Sushil Kumar Chadha
S/o Sh.R.L.Chadha
R/o Flat No. 3-D, 5 Under Hill Lane,
Civil Lines, Delhi-110054.
... Respondent
Date of institution: 20.11.2013
Date of arguments: 08.01.2014
Date of judgment : 18.01.2014
JUDGMENT
1. The revisionist has knocked the door of this court assailing the order dated 03.10.2013 passed by Ld. MM in the complaint case No. 4/IC whereby whereby she was summoned to face the trial for committing the offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC. He has assailed the said order stating that the Ld. MM Tis Hazari Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the above CA No. 124/13 Page No. 1 Gurpreet Kaur Vs. Sushil Kumar complaint No. 4/IC filed by the respondent on the basis of the statement made in the judicial proceedings before Rohini Courts, Delhi. The allegations on the basis of which the complaint was filed were not in fact the allegations but a narration of judicial facts of the judicial proceedings pending before Ld. MM, Rohini where the accused including the present respondent are being tried for committing the offence under Section 498A/406 /34 B IPC. The complainant nowhere says that any defamatory allegations were circulated within the jurisdiction of police station, Civil Lines, Delhi. Averments of particular facts do not constitute any defamation in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case titled as M.P.Singh Sahni Vs. State & Ors. He submits that the summoning of the accused in a criminal case is a serious matter, hence criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. He submits that order passed by the Ld. MM whereby he was summoned be set aside and recalled.
2. Upon filing of this revision petition, notice was given to the respondent and trial court record was summoned. As per trial court record, a complaint for the offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC was filed by the respondent herein against the appellant stating that one of the son of the complainant namely Manish Chadha was married with the appellant on 30.10.2005. There was no demand nor the same was given and whatever was gifted to the family of the complainant, the same was acknowledged by all of them with great love and affection. He further stated that after the CA No. 124/13 Page No. 2 Gurpreet Kaur Vs. Sushil Kumar marriage, the son of the respondent herein and the appellant lived for a considerable period at the house of the complainant/respondent herein bearing No. 3-D,5, Under Hill Lane, Civil Lines, Delhi. The son of the complainant also purchase a flat from his own savings bearing No. U 23/2, Ground Floor, Pink Town House,DLF Phase III, Gurgaon, Haryana and same was also financed by his parents and brother. He further stated that the accused/appellant started threatening the son of the complainant to live separately from the joint family. Under the compelling circumstances and in order to buy peace, the complainant advised his son Mahish Chadha to live separately alongwith the accused at his own flat. She further submitted that due to the persistence interference of the parental family of the accused/appellant, revisionist was doing all atrocities and cruelties against her husband and also was harassing the complainant's family and others. The revisionist in the present revision petition had also filed the case under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. He had also filed other litigation against appellant and his family members by invoking the provisions of Section 498/406/34 IPC initially with Crime Against Women Cell and thereafter, an FIR was registered. Son of the complainant has also filed a petition for grant of a decree of divorce against the accused under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act. Thereafter a number of litigation between the parties and in one of the revision petitions filed by the accused / revisionist, he CA No. 124/13 Page No. 3 Gurpreet Kaur Vs. Sushil Kumar challenged the legality and validity of the orders passed by the court of Ms. Vandana, Ld. MM, Rohini Courts as the revisionist has claimed initially that all her jewellery and istridhan was with held by the wife of the complainant namely Ms. Urmila Chadha on the very next day of her marriage and thereafter she claimed that her jewellery and istridhan was lying in a bank locker jointly in her name and in the name of her husband Manish Chadha with Punjab National Bank, Civil Lines, Delhi. On the basis of the application so moved by the accused, Ms. Vandana, Ld. MM, Delhi allowed the operation of the bank locker in the presence of the IO of the case. The bank locker was operated by the IO of the case and 53 articles including jewellery were recovered from the said locker and it was also informed by the bank officials that all the operations of the said bank locker, were exclusively done by the revisionist only. Inventory was also prepared by the IO of the case and the goods and articles were kept in safe custody. The accused/revisionist also moved an application for release of all the articles which were recovered from the joint locker of the revisionist and that of her husband. The son of the complainant, Manish Chadha had also claimed that out of the recovered articles, some of the articles were belonging to him and the said articles do not fall under the ambit of dowry articles. On the basis of the applications moved by the son of the complainant Manish Chadha and the revisionist, Ld. MM released most of the jewellery and other articles to the accused and the items which were claimed by CA No. 124/13 Page No. 4 Gurpreet Kaur Vs. Sushil Kumar the son of the complainant Manish Chadha were found to be the genuine claim of the son of the complainant Manish Chadha. Ld. MM refused to hand over the custody of those article to the accused. Feeling aggrieved from the said order dated 24.2.2011, the accused/revisionist filed a revision petition against the order passed by Ms. Vandana, Ld. MM, Rohini Courts and in the said revision petition dated 2.5.2011, the revisionist besides claiming the jewellery articles which were not released to her had stated that in para no. 3 of the revision petition that the accused were also prosecuted for committing various criminal offences including the offence under Section 498A/406/34 IPC (the accused are on bail at present). According to the complainant, revisionist intentionally and deliberately in order to defame and degrade and humiliate the complainant and his family members has alleged in the paragraph No. 3 of the revision petition that the complainant and his other family members were also prosecuted for committing various criminal offences while the accused is well aware of the fact that the complainant and even his other family members have been falsely implicated and named by her only in the case under Section 498/406/34 IPC and they have only been summoned by the court till date. He submits that said revision petition is being read by a number of persons , relatives, friends of the complainant and his prestige and position has become down. He is humiliated because of the defamatory per se allegations made by the revisionist against the complainant. He submits that the appellant be summoned upon CA No. 124/13 Page No. 5 Gurpreet Kaur Vs. Sushil Kumar filling of this complaint when this complaint was presented before the court, the court fixed the matter for consideration. Thereafter on the next date of hearing i.e. 29.2.2012, the counsel for the complainant sought time to cite the case law with regard to the maintainability of the present case. Part arguments have been heard on the issue of maintainability on 13.3.2012. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for a long time for clarification. Thereafter, the court had allowed the complainant to lead evidence. Thereafter, one witness from the record room was summoned and examined. Thereafter, two more witnesses have been examined. Ld. MM vide order dated 03.10.2013 had summoned the accused holding that the evidence make out a prima facie case u/s 500 IPC.
3. Against the impugned order of summoning, the present revision petition has been filed by the revisionist. He has assailed the said order of summoning primarily on two grounds, firstly on territorial jurisdiction and secondly upon the facts narrated in the revision petition which does constitute any defamation in terms of law laid down the Apex Court as well as Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter, hence criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course, while the respondent's counsel had countered the arguments stating that trial court had passed a well reasoned order while summoning the accused in the case under Section 500 IPC. He has submitted that averments made in the revision petition filed by the revisionist has been heard by so many lawyers and his CA No. 124/13 Page No. 6 Gurpreet Kaur Vs. Sushil Kumar clients and his prestige has been lowered down. He has submitted that Hon'ble Apex Court has already held that defamatory pleadings in the court proceedings tantamount to defamation. He has submitted that since the revisionist in para 3 of the revision petition alleged that the accused persons including the respondent were also prosecuted for committing various criminal offence including the offence under Section 498-A/406/34-B IPC. The above factum had been mentioned intentionally and deliberately in order to defame, degrade and humiliate the respondent and his family members while the revisionist know very well that none of the family member has been summoned in any case by the court in respect of the present dispute. He also challenged the maintainability of the revision petition stating that the revision cannot be filed against the summoning order which is interlocutory in nature.
4. So far so, the argument about the maintainability of the revision petition is concerned, Ld. counsel for the revisionist has conceded the fact that the revision is maintainable against the summoning order.
5. In the present revision petition, this court has to decide whether the facts mentioned by the revisionist in para 3 of the revision petition assailing the order passed by the ld. Magistrate whereby ld. Magistrate refused to hand over the custody of articles claimed by the son of the respondent belonging to him to the revisionist. In para 3 the revisionist has mentioned the following CA No. 124/13 Page No. 7 Gurpreet Kaur Vs. Sushil Kumar words : "That the accused were also prosecuted for committing various criminal offence including the offence under Section 498- A/406/34-B IPC".
6. So far so the first limb of arguments of ld. Counsel for the revisionist is concerned that this court has no territorial jurisdiction, has also no merits because if defamation has been stated in any court of law in the pleadings, then the word uttered by the counsel for the revisionist would be heard by all the section of the people. It is not necessary that the words have been heard only by the Lawyers and public of Rohini Court. Therefore, the arguments of ld. Counsel for the revisionist is not tenable. Second limb of argument of the counsel for the revisionist is whether the words mentioned in the revision petition amounts to defamation. In the case law cited by the respondent, the accused person had made allegations about the character and chastity of a woman in the pleadings. Therefore, it amounts to defamation in the eyes of public. But here, it has only been mentioned in the pleadings that accused including the respondent were also prosecuted for committing various criminal offence including the offence under Section 498-A/406/34 IPC. The above said facts in no manner can be said to be defamatory. Revisionist has not stated anything that the respondent is murderer, rapists or dacoits. In general term, the word prosecuted has been used that the respondent including other persons were prosecuted for committing various criminal offences. Petition under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act as CA No. 124/13 Page No. 8 Gurpreet Kaur Vs. Sushil Kumar well as offence under Section 498-A/406 IPC are criminal offences. Even a person, who has been charged under the Motor Vehicle Act can be said to be prosecuted for criminal offence though the offence is prohibitory in nature only.
7. Therefore, in view of the above discussions, I am of the view that order for summoning of the accused on the basis of pleadings in the shape of averments made in the revision petition does not amounts to defamation in any manner. Therefore, the order passed by the ld. Magistrate for summoning the revisionist for the offence under Section 500 IPC is recalled and set aside. The revision petition is allowed. TCR alongwith a copy of this order is sent back to the trial court. This revision file is consigned to record room.
Announced in open court (ATUL KUMAR GARG)
on 18.01.2014 Addl. Sessions Judge-03 (Central),
Delhi
CA No. 124/13 Page No. 9
Gurpreet Kaur Vs. Sushil Kumar
CR No. 124/13
Gurpreet Kaur Vs. Sushil Kumar Chaddha
18.01.2014
Present : Appellant in person with Counsel.
Respondent in person.
Vide separate judgment dictated and announced, the order passed by the ld. Magistrate for summoning the revisionist for the offence under Section 500 IPC is recalled and set aside. The revision petition is allowed. TCR alongwith a copy of this order is sent back to the trial court. This revision file is consigned to record room.
(Atul Kumar Garg) ASJ-03 (Central)/18.01.2014 CA No. 124/13 Page No. 10 Gurpreet Kaur Vs. Sushil Kumar