Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt.Sneh Lata vs Sunita on 30 July, 2012
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
CRM No. M-27063 of 2011 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No. M-27063 of 2011
Date of Decision:- 30.7.2012
Smt.Sneh Lata ...Petitioner
Vs.
Sunita ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present:- Mr.Vikram Bali, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral)
Tersely, the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant petition and emanating from the record, are that, initially, complainant Satpal Bhogal (since deceased), being represented by his daughter Sneh Lata (petitioner) (for brevity "the complainant") had filed a criminal complaint (Annexure P1) against her daughter-in-law Sunita and her father Kesar Chand respondents, under Sections 182, 500, 511, 120-B and 306 IPC, inter-alia pleading that his son Raj Kumar with the connivance of his wife Sunita and her father Kesar Chand, are all out to grab the movable property of the complainant and filed number of civil & criminal cases, which are pending in the Courts. On 16.4.1997, Sunita wife of Raj Kumar was stated to have lodged a report, leveling false allegations against the complainant, in order to defame him in the eyes of public. The image and reputation of the complainant was claimed to have been tarnished by the action of the respondents-accused. In the background of these allegations, he filed a criminal complaint (Annexure P1) against the accused, in the manner depicted here-in-before.
2. The Magistrate dismissed the complaint and discharged the accused, by virtue of impugned order dated 26.8.2008 (Annexure P4).
3. Aggrieved by the impugned order (Annexure P4), the revision CRM No. M-27063 of 2011 -2- petition (Annexure P5) filed by the complainant was dismissed as well, by the revisional Court, by way of impugned order dated 8.10.2010 (Annexure P6).
4. Petitioner Sneh Lata, daughter of late Satpal Bhogal, original complainant still did not feel satisfied and preferred the present petition (2nd revision) to quash the impugned orders (Annexures P4 & P6), invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.PC.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant, going through the record with his valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this context.
6. As is evident from the record, that originally, the complainant claimed that his reputation was tarnished on account of allegations contained in the complaint made to the police by his daughter-in-law Sunita wife of Raj Kumar. Taking into consideration the insufficiency of evidence on record, the trial Magistrate dismissed the complaint (Annexure P1) and discharged the respondents-accused, vide impugned order (Annexure P4), which, in substance, is as under :-
"I have heard the arguments put forth by the ld. counsel for the parties and hence carefully gone through the file, especially the statement of the complainant and his witnesses and come to the conclusion that the evidence led by the complainant failed to fulfill the ingredients to constitute the offence u/s 500 IPC, which was the main contention during the course of arguments. The complainant filed this complaint against the accused on the main allegations that the accused wanted to grab his property and wanted to get him involved in false case. The filing of the false complaint against a person does not come within the purview of section 500 IPC. The complainant in her entire statement has led stress upon that the accused moved false application in order to grab his property. He has also stressed upon that he had to remain out of his home due to the reason that the accused got registered a case against him. But there is no evidence on file that the accused persons circulated any material containing any defamatory language lowering the reputation of the complainant or they defamed the complainant by way of words amongst the people. The facts narrated in the complaint as well as evidence led by the complainant do not CRM No. M-27063 of 2011 -3- prove that the accused persons have defamed the complainant. Attributing the defamatory language and filing false complaint are entirely two different aspects. If the accused person had filed false complaint against the complainant, he could proceed against them for damages. Similarly, proceedings u/s 182 IPC could be launched against the accused persons by the concerned officer, to whom, the accused had filed the application. The evidence on file thus is in sufficient to frame the charge against the accused as if the evidence, led by the complainant goes un-rebutted, the same would not result into the conviction of the accused. Thus, the complaint filed by the complainant is ordered to be dismissed and the accused are ordered to be discharged."
7. Not only that, the revisional Court again examined the matter and dismissed the revision petition filed by the complainant, by means of impugned order (Annexure P6).
8. Meaning thereby, both the Courts below have duly considered the matter in right perspective and recorded the cogent grounds in this respect. Such impugned orders containing valid reasons cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, in the present 2nd revision petition, in the garb of petition under section 482 Cr.PC (which is otherwise barred under section 397(3) Cr.PC), unless and until, the same are illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant, so, the impugned orders (Annexures P4 & P6) deserve to be and are hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
9. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
10. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, instant petition is hereby dismissed as such.
30.7.2012 (Mehinder Singh Sullar)
AS Judge
Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No