Punjab-Haryana High Court
Randhir Singh And Others vs Balkar Singh on 10 September, 2013
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Criminal Misc. No.M-30324 of 2009(O&M) 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Criminal Misc. No.M-30324 of 2009(O&M)
Date of decision: 10.9.2013
Randhir Singh and others ......Petitioners
Versus
Balkar Singh ........Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.Ritesh Pandey, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr.Anurag Singh Tagra, Advocate for
Mr.Rajneesh Kumar, Advocate,
for respondent.
****
SABINA, J.
This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for short) for quashing of criminal complaint No. 137 dated 25.5.2007 (Annexure P-2) titled 'Balkar Singh vs. Randhir Singh' under Sections 500/ 148/ 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including summoning order dated 15.2.2008 (Annexure P-3).
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners, who were residents of village Umerpura had moved a complaint before the police for taking action against the respondent Devi Anita as he was not allowing them to use the public street. Respondent 2013.09.13 10:43 I am approving this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M-30324 of 2009(O&M) 2 alleged that the street belonged to him, although, the same was being maintained by the Municipal Committee. On the basis of the panchayatnama (Annexure P-1), submitted by the residents of the area, proceedings under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. were initiated against the respondent. Respondent submitted his necessary bail bonds and thereafter, the proceedings were dropped. No offence of defamation could be said to have been committed by the petitioners in view of Eighth Exception to Section 499 IPC.
Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that the respondent had been defamed by the petitioners in the presence of his relatives and friends. Respondent was working as a Junior Engineer with Punjab State Electricity Board and had been made to furnish bail bonds in the false proceedings initiated against him by the petitioners.
Section 499 reads as under:-
"Defamation:-
Whoever by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted to defame that person."
Eighth Exception to Section 499 IPC reads as under:-
"Accusation preferred in good faith to authorised person:
Devi Anita It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation 2013.09.13 10:43 I am approving this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M-30324 of 2009(O&M) 3 against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject- matter of accusation."
Punishment for defamation has been provided under Section 500 IPC . As per the said provision, whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Let us examine the facts of the present case as to whether the petitioners can be said to have committed the offence of defamation.
A perusal of Annexure P-1 reveals that the residents of the area had made a complaint against the respondent to the police. It was alleged in the complaint that in front of the house of the respondent, there was 15 feet wide public street. Respondent did not allow the residents of the area to pass through the street and abused the persons who tried to cross the street. Respondent claimed that he was owner of the street in question. Admittedly, proceedings under Sections 107/ 151 Cr.P.C. were initiated against the respondent on the basis of the complaint Annexure P-1. It is further admitted case of the parties that the respondent furnished his necessary bail bonds in the said proceedings and thereafter, the proceedings were dropped.
Case of the petitioners in the complaint was that the respondent was not allowing the residents of the area to pass through the public street, which was being maintained by the Devi Anita Municipal Committee. In these circumstances, all the residents of 2013.09.13 10:43 I am approving this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M-30324 of 2009(O&M) 4 the area had approached the police for protection of their rights. Hence, the case of the petitioners would fall within Eighth Exception to Section 499 IPC. The trial Court, while ordering the summoning of the petitioners to face trial qua commission of offence punishable under Sections 500/ 148/ 149 IPC, fell in error. Petitioners are the residents of the area and had complained qua illegal activity of the respondent to the police as the respondent was not allowing the residents of the area to use the public street in front of his house. Hence, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners are nothing but an abuse of process of law.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. Criminal complaint No. 137 dated 25.5.2007 (Annexure P-2) titled 'Balkar Singh vs. Randhir Singh' under Sections 500/ 148/ 149 IPC and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, including summoning order dated 15.2.2008 (Annexure P-3), are quashed.
(SABINA) JUDGE September 10, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.09.13 10:43 I am approving this document Chandigarh