Delhi District Court
Jagdish Singh vs Niranjan Singh on 29 September, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SH. YASHWANT KUMAR
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, SHAHDARA,
KARKARDOOMA, DELHI
CR No. 28/16
(Old CR No. 23/15)
Jagdish Singh
S/o Late Sh. Munshi Ram
R/o House No. 256, Village Karkardooma
Delhi-110092
.....Revisionist
Versus
Niranjan Singh
S/o Late Sh. Girwar Singh
R/o House No.47, Gali no. Village Karkardooma
Delhi-110092
....Respondent
Date of institution : 13.04.2015
Date of arguments : 28.09.2020
Date of Order : 29.09.2020
ORDER
1. The present revision petition was taken up for hearing arguments and for disposal through Video Conference Hearing on Cisco WebEx in pursuance of the directions issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi due to pandemic of Covid-19.
2. Vide this Order, I shall dispose off the aforesaid revision petition u/s 397 CrPC preferred by the revisionist against the impugned order dated 27.09.2014, passed in CC No. 87/13 by the Ld. ACMM, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, whereby Ld. Trial Court summoned the revisionist-herein/accused-therein for the offence punishable u/s 500 IPC.
3. The brief facts, as set out in the present revision petition, are that the complainant-therein / respondent-herein had filed the above mentioned Cr. Rev. No. 28/16 Jagdish Singh Vs. Niranjan Singh Page No. 1 of 6 complaint case u/s 190 (1)(a) r/w/s 200 CrPC against the revisionist- herein/accused-therein before the Ld. Trial Court with the allegations that revisionist-therein/accused and his family members keep some enmity in their mind against the complainant-therein and his family members. It is further alleged that revisionist made complaint against the complainant- therein with intent to harm his reputation and defamed his reputation in his office. After examination of complainant as CW1 in pre-summoning evidence before the Ld. Trial Court, Ld. Trial Court passed the impugned order dt. 27.09.2014.
4. Aggrieved by the said impugned order, the revisionist has preferred the present revision petition on the following grounds among others that vide the impugned order dt. 27.09.2014 the Ld. Trial Court summoned the accused-therein/ revisionist in the absence of cognizance. The impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground of non-compliance of Section 190 of CrPC. The revisionist relied upon the judgment in the case of Nupur Talwar vs. CBI 2012(2) SCC 188. There was no material available on record to summon the revisionist as the essential ingredients for the offence of defamation i.e. knowledge and belief are entirely missing and the intention on the part of the revisionist to harm the reputation of the respondents is also missing. The impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground that exceptions Eighth, Ninth and Tenth which are provided u/s 499 of IPC escaped the attention of the Ld. Trial Court. Neither the cause of action arose nor the alleged offence has been committed within the jurisdiction of this court. The revisionist in his revision petition further referred the judgments in the case of Pepsi Foods Limited Versus Special Judicial Magistrate 1998(5) SCC 749. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record and may even himself out questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or Cr. Rev. No. 28/16 Jagdish Singh Vs. Niranjan Singh Page No. 2 of 6 otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused. The revisionist has also taken the ground that the correctness, legality and propriety is the very foundation for the exercise of revisional jurisdiction as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kapoor Versus Ramesh Chandra 2012 (3) SCC Crl.986. The allegations leveled in the complaint as well as in the pre-summoning evidence recorded before the Ld. trial court are patently absurd and highly improbable. The Revisionist cannot be prosecuted for vicarious liability as no offence as alleged by the respondent neither in the complaint nor in his pre- summoning evidence. The revisionist has prayed to set aside the impugned order dt. 27.09.2014 passed by the Ld. Trial Court.
5. The Ld. Counsel for the parties have stated that this revision petition may be decided on the basis of their written arguments. I have gone through the written arguments filed on behalf of the parties and said impugned order dt. 27.09.2014 as well as materials available on record.
6. In the written arguments filed on behalf of the revisionist, Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has stated that respondent examined himself only and no other witness was examined. Even the name of other witnesses is not mentioned in the complaint case. The Ld. Trial Court had no jurisdiction as the alleged offence was committed within the jurisdiction of PS Anand Vihar. The Ld. Trial Court without taking cognizance of offence issued summon in arbitrary manner. There was no material available on record to summon the revisionist as the essential ingredients for the offence of defamation i.e. knowledge and belief are entirely missing and the intention on the part of the revisionist to harm the reputation of the respondents is also missing. The Eighth, Ninth and Tenth exceptions of Section 499 IPC is applied in this case. It is not defamation to prefer in good faith and accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the Cr. Rev. No. 28/16 Jagdish Singh Vs. Niranjan Singh Page No. 3 of 6 subject matter of the application and further it is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another provided that the imputation be made in good faith and for the protection of interest of the person making it, of any other person, or for the public good. The revisionist has also filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition in which he has mentioned reason for delay that elder brother of the revisionist was seriously ill and hospitalized since November 2014 and died in February 2015. The delay was bona fide and explained in the separate application u/s 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be dismissed.
7. Ld. Counsel for the respondent addressed oral arguments stating that the revision is time barred and not maintainable since there is a delay of 132 days and no sufficient/ reasonable reasons have been mentioned in the revision petition for such delay. However, Ld. Counsel for the respondent in the written arguments filed by him has stated that the revisionist has not come to court with clean hands and has played a fraud by not filling the covering page of the certified copy of the summoning order dated 27.09.2014 and has deliberately filed only inner page No. 1 & 2 of the summoning order which shows that the certified copy was prepared on 05.02.2015. The revisionist has deliberately not filed front page of certified copy of covering title of the case because on the back of title of the case, is stamped by the copying agency which shows as to when the certified copy was applied and as to when it was prepared. Even the certified copy of pages of summoning order filed by the revisionist shows that copy was prepared on 05.02.2015 but revisionist did not bother to file any revision petition till 10.04.2015. The certified copy shows that he applied for certified copy after about 25 days In February 2015, while summoning order was passed on 27.09.2014. This extra ordinary delay in filling the revision petition clearly shows that Cr. Rev. No. 28/16 Jagdish Singh Vs. Niranjan Singh Page No. 4 of 6 revisionist is himself careless in filling the revision petition within stipulated period. The revision petition was filed with delaying tactics to prolong the proceedings. The revisionist failed to produce any document to support his contention about the said delay. The counsel for the revisionist also filed another revision petition titled Jagdish vs. Kallu Ram against the summoning order on 31.01.2015. The revisionist and counsel are same as of this revision petition then why the revisionist has not filed the revision petition along with that revision petition on 31.01.2015.
8. Perusal of record reveals that complaint case u/s 190 (1)(a) r/w/s 200 CrPC was filed before the Ld. Trial Court on 22.04.2013. The complainant-therein examined himself as CW1 and deposed about the letter dt.17.04.2013 vide which comments were sought on the complaint dt.22.10.2012 Ex.CW1/2 made by revisionist-herein. CW1 also deposed about the false allegations made by the revisionist that CW1 got the job after attaining the age of maturity on the basis of forged school certificate. The complainant/CW1 denied the allegations made in Ex.CW1/2 and deposed that due to said complaint Ex.CW1/2, his reputation was badly damaged and he was defamed among his other office colleague and in the eyes of seniors of his office. The revisionist has taken the main grounds in the revision petition that he was summoned by the Ld.Trial Court in the absence of cognizance. There is a non-compliance of Section 190 CrPC. The allegations are absurd and highly improbable. The revisionist cannot be prosecuted for vicarious liability. The Ld. ACMM has to carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record and examine if any offence is prima facie committed by the accused. The essential ingredients for the offence of defamation i.e. knowledge and belief are entirely missing and the intention on the part of the revisionist to harm the reputation of the respondent is also missing. The respondent/complainant neither placed any material facts on record nor Cr. Rev. No. 28/16 Jagdish Singh Vs. Niranjan Singh Page No. 5 of 6 brought any witness to prove his contention. Whereas, the respondent has opposed the grounds taken by the revisionist in the revision petition that contents of the letter dt. 22.10.2012 is highly defamatory which was intentionally written by the revisionist to the senior of the respondent in order to badly harm the reputation of the respondent. Further, at the time of summoning to the accused, it has to be seen whether there are sufficient material on file to proceed against the accused but not whether the evidence available on file are sufficient to convict the accused. In view of the above facts and circumstances, written arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the parties and the above judgments relied upon, I am of the considered opinion that criminal complaint was filed against the revisionist for the offence u/s 323/500 IPC. Ld.ACMM after going through the testimony of complainant/CW1 and also having found the sufficient material on record to prosecute the proposed accused as accused, the revisionist was summoned as an accused only u/s 500 IPC. The judgments relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist are distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order dt.27.09.2014 passed by the Ld. Trial Court. Accordingly, this revision petition is devoid of any merits and the same is dismissed. TCR along with the copy of this Order be sent to the Ld. Trial Court. Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by YASHWANT YASHWANT KUMAR
Announced through video
KUMAR Date: 2020.09.29
17:40:08 -0400
Conference during (YASHWANT KUMAR)
pandemic of Covid-19 Principal District & Sessions Judge
on 29th day of September 2020 Shahdara, KKD Courts, Delhi
Cr. Rev. No. 28/16 Jagdish Singh Vs. Niranjan Singh Page No. 6 of 6