Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajpal Singh Lohchab vs J.S.Solkhe on 18 March, 2013
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
Criminal Misc.No.26059 of 2012 (O&M) :1 :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: March 18, 2013
Rajpal Singh Lohchab
......Petitioner
Versus
J.S.Solkhe
......Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Shri A.S.Virk, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.G.S.Gandhi, Advocate,
for the respondent.
*****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
Raj Pal Singh Lohchab has approached this Court for quashing of a criminal complaint No.21 of 2010 dated 2.4.2010. This complaint is filed by J.S.Solkhe for which the petitioner stands summoned vide order dated 11.4.2012. The petitioner, who had worked as Registrar of National Institute of Technology, Kurukshetra has accordingly filed this petition for quashing of the complaint and the summoning order. Incidentally, he is no more working as a Registrar of the said Institute. Respondent-complainant is an Editor and owner of Local Weekly Hindi Newspaper Bahujan Express. This Criminal Misc.No.26059 of 2012 (O&M) :2 : is being published from Kurukshetra. The respondent-complainant has allegedly published some false, frivolous and defamatory news item in the newspaper on 3.3.2008. The Institute decided to serve legal notice to the respondent-complainant, which was duly sent on 6.3.2008. The Institute also decided to file a civil suit claiming damages of Rs.50.00 lacs. The suit was filed through the petitioner he being a Registrar. In addition, the Institute also decided to file a criminal complaint against the respondent-complainant for publishing this false and defamatory news item. The trial Court has summoned the respondent on 9.7.2008 and respondent is statedly facing trial for an offence under Section 500 IPC.
It is alleged that the respondent still did not desist from publishing false and frivolous news items with the aim to defame the Institute. Such news items were published on 17.3.2008, 24.3.2008, 31.3.2008, 21.4.2008, 2.6.2008, 9.6.2008 and 7.7.2008. Faced with this situation, the Institute decided to file a complaint with the Press Council of India and the said complaint was filed on 20.8.2008 through the petitioner being a Registrar. This complaint was filed qua the news items referred to above and not qua the news items dated 3.3.2008 for which a suit for damages and criminal complaint had already been filed.
On receipt of the complaint, the Press Council of India asked the Institute to fulfill the following requirements in terms of Regulation No.3 of Press Council (Procedure for Inquiry) Regulations, 1979:-
"(a) Give complete address of the respondent Criminal Misc.No.26059 of 2012 (O&M) :3 : newspaper/news agency. Original copy or a self-attested copy of the matter or non-publication of matter. (English translation, if the news item(s) in vernacular)
(b) State in what manner the publication or non-
publication of the matter complained of is objectionable. (c ) Draw the attention of the respondent editor to the matter appearing in the newspaper or to the non-
publication thereof, which, in your opinion is objectionable giving your point wise rejoinder thereto.
(d) In case, the complaint is that an editor or a working journalist has committed any professional misconduct furnish the facts in detail to justify the complaint. Attention of the respondent be drawn and reply, if any, received from him be filed.
(e) Place all relevant facts along with the supporting documents before the Council, in support of your contentions, if so desired.
(f) (i) Time limit for filing complaint:
Dailics/Weeklies: 2 months-other periodicals: 4 months from the date of publication.
(ii) If delay, has been caused in filing the complaint, you may request for condonation of delay mentioning the reasons.
(h) File declaration in the enclosed format.
The above requirement was complied with and the requisite information was furnished. While responding the petitioner- Criminal Misc.No.26059 of 2012 (O&M) :4 : institution has clearly mentioned that it had filed a criminal complaint under Section 500 IPC and a civil suit for damages regarding news item published on 3.3.2008. A declaration in this regard was also furnished in the format by the petitioner being a Registrar. Copies of the declaration are also annexed with the petition.
The Press Council conducted the hearing in the case, but adjourned the proceedings sine-die on 7.9.2009 awaiting the final decision of the civil suit and the criminal complaint. The liberty was given to the Institute to approach the Council in case the Institute felt offended by any future reporting.
In the meantime, respondent-complainant filed an application with the Director NITK to amicably settle the matter. The matter was accordingly settled and civil suit and criminal complaint were withdrawn on 5.12.2011. Having done so, the respondent- complainant allegedly with malafide intention and oblique motive has filed a criminal complaint for offences under Sections 193, 199, 200 and 500 IPC against the petitioner before Illaqa Magistrate, Kurukshetra. In this complaint, the complainant had examined himself as a witness besides examining Sub Editor. Whereafter the trial court has summoned the petitioner on 11.4.2012 for offences under Sections 193, 199, 200 and 500 IPC. The petitioner has put in appearance on 22.5.2012 and has been admitted on bail. He has now approached this Court for quashing of this complaint.
The counsel for the petitioner would contend that no offence punishable under the sections for which he stands summoned is made out. The petitioner had filed this complaint in Criminal Misc.No.26059 of 2012 (O&M) :5 : discharge of official duty as a Registrar before the Press Council of India. It is accordingly pleaded that Court could not have taken cognizance of the case except with the previous sanction of the Government in terms of Section 197 Cr.P.C. The petitioner would also allege that he has been summoned by the Court without considering the material. The complaint filed before the Press Council was not concerning the news item dated 3.3.2008 and this fact is clearly mentioned in the complaint itself. Even in the declaration (Annexure P-7), which was filed before the Press Council of India would clearly show that no mention is made to news item dated 3.3.2008. Even in Annexure P-9, this fact is found recorded and the matter was deferred only to await the decision of the civil court and the criminal complaint, which the petitioner had filed.
The grievance of the respondent-complainant is that the petitioner had furnished a declaration mentioning that the complaint filed is qua news item dated 3.3.2008 which is not made out from the record. If it had been so, obviously the Press Council would not have adjourned the proceedings sine-die to await the outcome of the civil suit and the criminal proceedings. The counsel would further contend that no offence under Section 500 IPC is made out against the petitioner.
The complainant has filed reply and has raised objection to the maintainability of the petitioner as remedy of revision is available against the impugned order. It is also urged that the petition involved disputed questions of fact and these can be adjudicated only by leading the evidence before the trial Court. The petitioner is Criminal Misc.No.26059 of 2012 (O&M) :6 : alleged to have misstated facts and accordingly the impugned order summoning the petitioner is justified by the respondent. Other pleas on the merits are also controverted.
Counsel for the petitioner has pressed before me primarily two grounds to seek quashing of this complaint and the summoning order. He would first contend that the Press Council of India is a court as per the provisions of Section 15(3) of the Press Council Act and accordingly if any false declaration is filed before the Press Council to allege offences under Sections 193, 199 and 200 IPC, the cognizance could only be taken on a complaint filed by the Press Council in view of Section 195 Cr.P.C. The counsel for the petitioner would next contend that no case of defamation can be urged at this stage as the allegation of any false complaint or a declaration is not made so far. If ultimately it is held that the petitioner has filed a false declaration before the Press Council of India, only then the question of any proceeding against the petitioner for offence under Section 500 IPC would arise. Even the petitioner may also be entitled to plead the exceptions contained under the section as his defence.
On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent would primarily press his plea for maintainability of the petition in view of the remedy of revision. In support, the counsel for the respondent has referred to Palwinder Raj Singh Versus The State of Punjab, 2003 (1) Criminal Court Cases 673, Rajinder Arora alias Raju Versus State of Punjab & another, 2011(1) RCR (Crl.) 462 and M/s Mangat Ram Raj Kumar Versus M/s Gurdit Singh Jagrup Singh, Criminal Misc.No.26059 of 2012 (O&M) :7 : 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 466 (P&H). Counsel has further referred to Om Kr. Dhankar Versus State of Haryana and another, Vol.CLXVII-(2012-13) Punjab Law Reporter 120, where the court has held that offence under Sections, 420, 406 IPC by its very nature cannot regarded as having been committed by public servant while acting or purported to act in discharge of his official duty and so the sanction of the competent authority to prosecute was not required.
Ordinarily, the alternative remedy of revision would be a bar for filing a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing. However, in this case, the petitioner has raised purely legal issue affecting the jurisdiction of the trial court to proceed in this case. That being the position, it may not be appropriate to relegate the petitioner to his alternative remedy of filing a revision. The issue involved in this case is whether the cognizance of offence under Sections 193, 199 and 200 IPC can be taken without following the procedure as prescribed under Section 195 Cr.P.C. Section 193 provides for punishment for false evidence, whereas Section 199 IPC punishes for false statement made in declaration which is by law receivable as evidence. Section 195 Cr.P.C. inter-alia provides that no court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under any of the following sections of the IPC, namely, Sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive) 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228 when such offence is alleged to have been committed in or relation to any proceeding in any court.......... Even as per the complaint, petitioner is summoned under Section 193 IPC and, thus, he is accused of intentionally giving false evidence in any stage of judicial proceedings Criminal Misc.No.26059 of 2012 (O&M) :8 : or fabricating false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of judicial proceedings. That being so, obviously these are the proceedings, which are before a court of law as otherwise, offence under Section 193 IPC cannot be alleged. Similar is the position for an offence under Section 199 IPC. What is punished under this section is any declaration made or prescribed by an accused, which declaration any court of law or any public servant or other person is bound or authorised by law to receive as evidence of any facts. Once the allegations are made under this section, it would stand conceded that these proceedings were before a court of justice or before any public servant, who was bound or authorised by law to receive this as evidence. Thus, the applicability of Section 195 Cr.P.C. cannot be wished away. As per this provision, no court can take cognizance of the offence except on a complaint in writing of that court or of some other court to which that court is subordinate. The submission by the counsel for the respondent that person aggrieved in this case is the complainant is meaningless assertion once the petitioner has been summoned under Sections 193 and 199 and 200 IPC. The declaration allegedly was filed before the Press Council which is to be taken as a Court. Thus, the complaint by the Court, i.e., Press Council of India in this case would be necessary for taking cognizance for an offence under Sections 193, 199 and 200 IPC. Concededly, there is no complaint filed by the Press Council of India.
In fact, the issue of any false declaration is yet to be adjudicated by the Press Council of India and the proceedings have Criminal Misc.No.26059 of 2012 (O&M) :9 : only been adjourned sine-die. In this background, the Press Council of India obviously would not have any occasion to file any complaint of false declaration having been made before it by the petitioner. There being a statutory bar for taking cognizance of offence, the summoning of the petitioner in violation of the said provision is clear and apparent. This ground is enough to quash the summoning order against the petitioner. It is so ordered. The petition is allowed. Summoning order and all subsequent proceedings against the petitioner are hereby quashed. This order, however, will not be a bar if ultimately the Press Council finds that any declaration or a complaint filed before it was false.
March 18, 2012 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE