Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shiv Narain Dixit vs Balwant Singh on 13 July, 2015
Author: Hari Pal Verma
Bench: Hari Pal Verma
CRM-A-977-MA of 2013 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-A-977-MA of 2013 (O&M).
Decided on:-July 13, 2015.
Shiv Narain Dixit. .........Applicant.
Versus
Balwant Singh. .........Respondent.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARI PAL VERMA.
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to reporters or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes
Present:- Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate for the applicant.
HARI PAL VERMA, J.
CRM No.47229 of 2013
This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay of 45 days in filing the appeal.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 45 days in filing the appeal is condoned. CRM-A-977-MA of 2013 The appellant-complainant has filed the present application under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of special leave to appeal against the order dated 23.7.2013 whereby the trial Court had YAG DUTT 2015.07.16 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-A-977-MA of 2013 -2- dismissed the complaint filed by the applicant-complainant under Sections 500, 501, 502 and 504 IPC and had acquitted the respondent-accused.
Briefly stated, as averred in the complaint, a religious institution in the name and style of "Jai Shakti Dev Maharaj Sangh" has been established by Swami Shree Shakti Dev Maharaj, a spiritual saint whose name was Shri Krishan Chand Shastri. Several persons throughout India have faith in Swami Shree Shakti Dev Maharaj as their Guru. The complainant is Sanchalak of "Jai Onkar Sewa Ashram Seva Sangh" who is looking after all affairs of the said institution and all the followers of Swami Shree Shakti Dev Maharaj remain in his contact. Swami Dev Maharaj has been delivering the spiritual speeches by holding Satsang all over India and a holy temple of Swembhu Aadi Shakti Maha Kal has been constructed at village Kurdi, where regular Satsang has been holding at Shanti Nagar, Kurdi for the last many years. All affairs of the temple and religious institution are being looked after by the complainant being a Sanchalak. However, some persons who are jealous to Jai Onkar Sewa Ashram Sangh at village Shanti Nagar attacked on the followers of Swami Shakti Dev Maharaj on 9.7.2000 with intention to hurt their religious feeling and to refrain them from attending the Satsang. An FIR No.72 dated 14.7.2000 was lodged for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 148, 149, 294, 295-A, 296, 452, 379, 427 and 506 IPC against 13 persons including the members of so called Taraksheel Society with Police Station Jhansa, but YAG DUTT 2015.07.16 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-A-977-MA of 2013 -3- the same was cancelled. However, the complainant who is a follower of Jai Onkar Sewa Ashram Sangh and worships to Swami Shakti Dev Maharaj as his Guru, had contested the cancellation report and the Court had taken cognizance against all the accused by invoking the provisions of Section 190(1-b) Cr.P.C. and summoned the accused to face trial.
It has been averred that the respondent is an accused in a criminal case bearing FIR No.72 dated 14.7.2000. Accused No.4, namely, Ram Mehar Kurdia joined hands with other accused to defame the religious Guru of the complainant and got published a news item dated 26.2.2004 in daily newspaper 'Ajit Samachar' against Swami Shree Shakti Dev Maharaj i.e. Guru of the complainant by mentioning his worldly name as "Krishan Chand Shastri" with intention to defame him in public which is as follows:
"Iske Char Saal bad ab usi Krishan Chand Shastri ne ochhe hathkande apnakar panchayat wa tarasheelo ke khilaf 11.2.2004 ko dhara 148/149, 294, 295/295-A/296, 452/373/427/506 IPC ke tehat notice jari karwa diya hai aur sath hi taraksheelo ko jaan se maarje ki dhamkiyan bhi di ja rahi hai."
In his preliminary evidence, the complainant examined Raman Arora, criminal Ahlmad as CW1, himself as CW2, Pritam Singh as CW3 and Rajesh Kumar as CW4.
On the basis of preliminary evidence, the accused were summoned by the trial Court vide order dated 6.1.2007 to face trial for commission of offence punishable under Section 500 IPC. However, during YAG DUTT 2015.07.16 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-A-977-MA of 2013 -4- the pendency of complaint, on the statement of complainant, accused No.1, 2 and 4 were given up leaving accused No.3 i.e. the present respondent, to face trial.
The trial Court framed the charge against the respondent for offences punishable under Sections 499/500 IPC vide order dated 26.7.2011. The respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
On the basis of statements so recorded, statement of the respondent under Section 313 Cr.PC was recorded wherein his false implication was pleaded. In defence, respondent Balwant Singh had examined Mehar Singh, Assistant Record Keeper as DW1, Anita Rani, Addl. Ahlmad as DW2 and Surinder Kumar, Clerk as DW3 and tendered certain documents in his support.
The trial Court vide judgment dated 23.7.2013 had dismissed the complaint and also observed as under:
"Moreover, it is to be seen by this Court whether the present complaint for defamation is maintainable or not? It is well settled law that the action for defamation is maintainable only by the person who is defamed and not by friend, relative and family member. Undoubtedly, the complainant is real brother of Swami Shakti Dev Maharaj. It is held by Hon'ble Kolkata High Court in Sukamal Kanti Ghosh Versus Shoulmari Asharam and another AIR 1970 Calcutta 248 that institution of proceedings under Section 500 IPC on complaint alleging defamation of Ashram, complaint filed by member of Ashram is not maintainable because being not filed by the YAG DUTT 2015.07.16 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-A-977-MA of 2013 -5- aggrieved person and the cognizance taken under Section 198 is improper and vitiates the proceedings. It is further held by Kolkata High Court in Dhirendra Nath Sen and another Versus Rajat Kanti Bhadra AIR 1970 216 that in a case for defamation of a spiritual head of certain community, individual person of that community, is not a person aggrieved. Cognizance of offence taken on a complaint by such individual is illegal. The citation relied upon by learned counsel for complainant i.e. Johan Thomas Versus Dr. K. Jagadeesan 2001(3) RCR (Criminal) 381 is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of present case. In that very case, it was held by Hon'ble Apex Court that in case of defamation of a company by publication of material containing defamatory imputations against company, the Director of company can file complaint under Section 500 IPC because he has reason to feel hurt on account of publication, even if there was no libel personally against the Director. Director is aggrieved person within the meaning of Section 199 Cr.P.C. The genuineness of this citation cannot be ignored into. In the present complaint, it is Swami Shakti Dev Maharaj who can be considered as Director/real complainant and complaint should have been filed on his behalf and not by any of his followers."
I have heard learned counsel for the applicant-complainant. Learned counsel for the applicant-complainant has submitted that non-suit of the applicant on the ground that the complaint is not maintainable has resulted into miscarriage of justice. He has relied upon S. Khushboo Versus Kanniammal and another 2010 AIR (SC) 3196 to prove YAG DUTT 2015.07.16 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-A-977-MA of 2013 -6- that such complaints are maintainable. Interestingly, while relying upon the judgment of M.S. Jayaraj Versus Commissioner of Excise, Kerala and others (2000) 7 SCC 552, the Apex Court has defined the words "person aggrieved". The relevant observations as referred in S. Khushboo's case (supra) read as under:
"This takes us to the question of whether the impugned complaints were made in a bona fide manner. As we have already noted, most of the complainants are associated with the PMK, a political party which is active in the State of Tamil Nadu. This fact does add weight to the suggestion that the impugned complaints have been filed with the intention of gaining undue political mileage. It may be reiterated here that in respect of the offence of defamation, Section 199 Cr.PC mandates that the Magistrate can take cognizance of the offence only upon receiving a complaint by a person who is aggrieved. This limitation on the power to take cognizance of defamation serves the rational purpose of discouraging the filing of frivolous complaints which would otherwise clog the Magistrate's Courts. There is of course some room for complaints to be brought by persons other than those who are aggrieved, for instance when the aggrieved person has passed away or is otherwise unable to initiate legal proceedings. However, in given facts of the present case, we are unable to see how the complainants can be properly described as 'persons aggrieved' within the meaning of Section 199(1)(b) Cr.PC. As explained earlier, there was no specific legal injury caused to any of the complainants since the appellant's remarks were not directed at any individual or a readily identifiable group of YAG DUTT 2015.07.16 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-A-977-MA of 2013 -7- people. In M.S. Jayaraj Vs. Commissioner of Excise, Kerala & Ors., (2000) 7 SCC 552, this Court observed as under:
"The 'person aggrieved' means a person who is wrongfully deprived of his entitlement which he is legally entitled to receive and it does not include any kind of disappointment or personal inconvenience. 'Person aggrieved' means a person who is injured or one who is adversely affected in a legal sense."
In a complaint filed under Sections 499/500/501 IPC, the Court has to consider whether the complainant had the proper legal standing to bring such a complaint. Section 199 Cr.P.C. permits only an 'aggrieved person' to move the Court in case of defamation. This section is mandatory and it is a settled legal proposition that if a Magistrate were to take cognizance of the offence of defamation on a complaint filed by one who is not an 'aggrieved person', the trial and conviction of an accused in such a case by the Magistrate would be void and illegal and, therefore, the judgment in S. Khushboo's case (supra) is of no help to the applicant- complainant, rather, is contrary to his pleadings.
Reliance has also been placed on K.V. Ramesh and others Versus H.C. Ramesh 2001 Criminal Law Journal 3556 (Karnataka) but in that case, imputations were made not only against the father of the complainant who was the Prime Minister of India at the time of publication of the said news item but also against his sons, daughters and wife which were held to be perverse, defamatory in nature and, therefore, can be termed YAG DUTT 2015.07.16 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-A-977-MA of 2013 -8- as 'person aggrieved'. But in the case in hand, complainant Shiv Narain Dixit who is claiming to be a Sanchalak of Jai Onkar Sewa Ashram Sangh is not a 'person aggrieved' and, therefore, cognizance of offence on a complaint by such individual is legally not permissible. The news item dated 26.2.2004 as published in daily newspaper Ajit Samachar was referred to Guru of the complainant, namely, Krishan Chand Shastri whereas the present complaint was filed by Shiv Narain Dixit. Therefore, the applicant-complainant cannot be termed as a 'person aggrieved' as defined in M.S. Jayaraj's case (supra). The applicant-complaint has not been caused any injury and is not adversely affected in a legal sense.
In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the present application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
(HARI PAL VERMA) JUDGE July 13, 2015 'Yag Dutt' YAG DUTT 2015.07.16 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document