Delhi District Court
S.K. Bhat vs . Kailash Chandra Arora on 6 October, 2018
S.K. Bhat Vs. Kailash Chandra Arora
CR No: 108/2017
IN THE COURT OF SHRI HARISH DUDANI
SPECIAL JUDGE, (PC ACT) (CBI)-1
DISTRICT COURTS(SW), DWARKA, NEW DELHI.
In the matter of :-
CR No. : 108/2017
Wg. Cdr.(Retd.) S.K. Bhat
S/o Sh. P.N. Bhat
R/o C-3/140, 2nd Floor, Janakpuri
New Delhi- 110058.
......... Revisionist
VERSUS
Mr. Kailash Chandra Arora
R/o C-3/140, Ground Floor
Janakpuri
New Delhi- 110058.
.......Respondent
CR No. 108/2017
Date of Institution 08.03.2017
Reserved for orders on 25.09.2018
Judgment announced on 06.10.2018
CR No: 108/2017 page 1 of 24 DOJ 06.10.2018
S.K. Bhat Vs. Kailash Chandra Arora
CR No: 108/2017
JUDGMENT
1. This is a revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. against the impugned order dated 07.12.2016 passed by Ld CMM(West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi whereby Ld. CMM has been pleased to dismiss the complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. for commission of offences under Section 499/500 IPC filed by the complainant. Briefly stated facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are as under:
2. The present revision petition arises out of Complaint Case No. 100/1 titled as "Wg. Cdr.(Retd). S.K. Bhat Vs. Mr. Kailash Chandra Arora filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. for commission of offences under Sections 499/500 IPC by the complainant (revisionist herein).
3. In the complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the complainant has stated that he has served Indian Airforce till 2005 and has been a decorated officer and in the year 2005 the complainant retired from Indian Airforce and joined as a Captain in Interglobe Aviation(Indigo) and since then the complainant is working as a Commercial pilot. It is stated that complainant is residing at C-3/140, 2nd Floor, Janakpuri, New Delhi having purchased the same vide sale deed dated 30.03.2007 along with the roof rights with CR No: 108/2017 page 2 of 24 DOJ 06.10.2018 S.K. Bhat Vs. Kailash Chandra Arora CR No: 108/2017 mezzanine room of the property bearing no. C-3/140. It is stated that the respondent is residing at the ground floor of property no. C-3/140, Janakpuri, New Delhi and the respondent had two water tanks of capacity 750 ltrs and 500 ltrs respectively which were installed on the roof of the building which belongs to the complainant and the complainant has always permitted the respondent to visit the roof for cleaning and maintenance of the water tanks.
4. It is stated in the complaint that in August 2015, the respondent had raised some concerns regarding the current condition of the water tanks installed on the roof of the house and requested for permission to get the same repaired/replaced which in the good faith was permitted by the complainant. It is stated that between 20th to 23rd August 2015, the respondent along with his son in law got installed huge water tanks with additional capacity in the guise of getting the old water tanks repaired, in contravention of the agreed conditions between the complainant and the respondent and the respondent and his son in law paid no heed to the objections and concerns raised by the old parents of the complainant and also to the telephonic request made by the complainant that roof of the building shall not be able to bear the additional load and burden. It is stated that thereafter on 24.08.2015 the CR No: 108/2017 page 3 of 24 DOJ 06.10.2018 S.K. Bhat Vs. Kailash Chandra Arora CR No: 108/2017 complainant met the respondent and expressed his concerns regarding replacing of large capacity water tanks installed by the respondent on the roof of the complainant. It is stated that thereafter the complainant also issued one letter dated 11.09.2015 to the respondent but respondent failed to replace the huge capacity water tanks with the previously installed capacity water tanks. It is further stated that the respondent issued the defamatory letters dated 19.10.2015 not only to the employer of the complainant but also to the Director General Civil Aviation, Senior Citizen Cell, DCP West District, Special CP-Crime, RWA, The CMO Grievance Cell, The Chief Vigilance Officer alleging false and frivolous allegations aimed at defaming the complainant and to malign and lower the esteem of the complainant in their eyes without any cause and justifiable reason.
5. It is stated in the complaint that in the letter dated 19.10.2015 the respondent has made defamatory remarks with the sole intention to tarnish the image of the complainant in the eyes of his employer, friends, relatives and neighbours.
6. By way of complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., it was prayed that respondent be summoned, tried and punished in accordance with law.
CR No: 108/2017 page 4 of 24 DOJ 06.10.2018 S.K. Bhat Vs. Kailash Chandra Arora CR No: 108/2017
7. Vide order dated 28.01.2016 Ld. Trial Court was pleased to take cognizance of the offence and case was fixed for pre summoning evidence.
8. In the pre- summoning evidence, the complainant examined himself as CW1 and Sh. P.M. Rai as CW2. In the pre-summoning evidence, the complainant/CW1 has stated that respondent has written a letter dated 19.10.2015 Ex.CW1/1 to various authorities in which he has made various allegations against him in order to malign his reputation and in para 2 of the said complaint, the respondent has made allegations against his character and the said complaint was also sent to Chief Vigilance Officer, DGCA, New Delhi. CW1 further stated that he is presently working in Indigo Airlines as Commercial Pilot . CW1 has further stated that complaint Ex. CW1/C was sent to various authorities including Chief Vigilance Officer, New Delhi. CW1 stated that complaint Ex.CW1/A was also sent to President RWA and the letter Ex.CW1/A has maligned his reputation infront of his neighbours, relatives and acquaintances. CW1 stated that earlier the accused has installed two huge capacity water tanks on the terrace without his permission although he is having absolute roof right and he has also written a letter dated 11.09.2015 Ex.CW1/3 to the accused but the accused CR No: 108/2017 page 5 of 24 DOJ 06.10.2018 S.K. Bhat Vs. Kailash Chandra Arora CR No: 108/2017 did not pay any heed.
9. CW2 Sh. P.M. Rai stated that he has been the President of C-3 Block, Janak Puri Residents' Welfare Association for the past two years and he knows the complainant for the past 5-6 years and he was aware that complainant was serving as a decorated Air Force officer and that the complainant is a commercial pilot with M/s Indigo Airlines. CW2 further stated that in October, 2015 he received a letter from the respondent and the said letter was addressed to various other authorities and a copy was addressed to Resident's Welfare Association and after going through the letter, he felt that complainant is destructive kind of a person and his esteem reputation was lowered in his eyes being President of the RWA. CW2 further stated that thereafter he conducted inquiry into the conduct of complainant and found that there was a petty dispute going on between the complainant and the respondent and he found the allegations as contained in the letter are false.
10. Thereafter pre-summoning evidence was closed vide order dated 15.03.2016.
11. After going through the complaint of complainant and pre summoning evidence , the Ld. Trial Court vide impugned order dated 07.12.2016 has been pleased to dismiss the complaint under Section 200 CR No: 108/2017 page 6 of 24 DOJ 06.10.2018 S.K. Bhat Vs. Kailash Chandra Arora CR No: 108/2017 Cr.P.C. of the complainant for the offences punishable under sections 499/500 IPC.
12. Aggrieved by the order dated 07.12.2016, the complainant filed the present revision petition stating that the Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate the contents of letter dated 19.10.2015 are per se defamatory in nature and the Ld. Trial Court proceeded on the assumption that letter containing the defamatory content was issued to SHO, Janakpuri. It is stated in the revision petition that Ld. Trial Court has ignored the fact that letter dated 19.10.2015 was issued and received by various authorities including the office of DGCA and also the concerned airlines where revisionist is employed. It is stated that Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider the allegations made in the complaint and the material placed on record and has passed the impugned order without going into the ingredients of offence under Section 499 IPC. It is contended that impugned order dated 07.12.2016 be set aside.
13. The respondent has filed written submissions and has contested the revision petition.
14. In the written submissions, the respondent has stated that the revision petition has been filed for settling the personal scores with the respondent and the revisionist has given colour of criminal offence to a CR No: 108/2017 page 7 of 24 DOJ 06.10.2018 S.K. Bhat Vs. Kailash Chandra Arora CR No: 108/2017 petty civil issue. It is stated that relations of the respondent who is residing on the ground floor of property no. C-3/140, Janakpuri, Delhi were friendly and cordial with the revisionist. It is stated that in the Month of July 2015, the revisionist approached the respondent and conveyed his intention to construct/add additional portions or dwelling at roof level and also demanded to provide required space at ground floor level for erection of structure for installation of lift to have separate access to his second floor and further to be constructed floors, for which respondent replied that if the municipal bye- laws, registered sale deed owned by revisionist and other parameters permits for construction of additional dwelling, he may do so, for which respondent will not have any objections. It is stated that after finding the reply of the respondent unfavourable, the revisionist started creating troubles by restricting water flow from the designated water tanks placed at the designated location at roof level, as per the sale deed. It is stated that on 19.08.2015 the respondent had procured and brought two numbers of new water tanks with same base dimensions but with additional storage capacity in the presence of the revisionist and the water tanks were replaced and installed at the same designated place at roof level after removing the damaged water tanks of respondent. It is stated that on 24.08.2015 the CR No: 108/2017 page 8 of 24 DOJ 06.10.2018 S.K. Bhat Vs. Kailash Chandra Arora CR No: 108/2017 revisionist called the respondent and complained that the respondent had encroached additional space at roof level while replacing old tanks with new ones. It was noticed by the respondent that the new water tanks have been clustered with wooden planks having nails protruding thus proving of malicious intention of the revisionist to damage the newly replaced water tanks. It is stated that the revisionist started restricting/closing the water valve in order to restrict the water flow to the premises of the respondent. Thereafter the revisionist sent unsigned letter dated 11.09.2015. It is stated that after finding the mischievous and criminal intention of the revisionist of restricting the water flow to the premises of the respondent, the respondent approached the police with written complaint dated 19.10.2015 and after filing of the written complaint to PS SHO, Janakpuri, respondent was following up the same. It is stated that in the letter dated 19.10.2015, the respondent has only explained the facts of situation and the acts of the revisionist of picking up one word from a sentence out of a paragraph from a details letter is very much surprising. It is stated that respondent never intended to defame the revisionist. It is stated that revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
15. I have heard Ld. Counsels for the parties and perused the record.
CR No: 108/2017 page 9 of 24 DOJ 06.10.2018 S.K. Bhat Vs. Kailash Chandra Arora CR No: 108/2017
16. The contention of Ld. Counsel for the revisionist is that copies of letter dated 19.10.2015 which has been written by the respondent to SHO, PS Janakpuri, have been sent to various authorities including Chief Vigilance Officer, DGCA. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has further contended that the said letter dated 19.10.2015 contains the paragraph which has been written in order to undermine the dignity of revisionist and to undermine his reputation in the eyes others and to cause harm to the reputation of revisionist who is employed as a pilot with Indigo Airlines. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has contended that in the impugned order, Ld. Trial Court has not considered that the copies of the letter dated 19.10.2015 were also sent to DGCA and has thereby caused harm to the reputation of revisionist.
17. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the following decisions :
(i) Arundhati Sapru Vs. Yash Mehra, Crl. M.C. 581/2013 & Crl. M.A. No. 1887/2013 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
(ii) Mohd. Abudlla Khan Vs. Prakash K. , (2018) 1 Supreme Court Cases 615.
18. Ld. Counsel for the respondent has contended that the reading of the contents of letter dated 19.10.2015 CR No: 108/2017 page 10 of 24 DOJ 06.10.2018 S.K. Bhat Vs. Kailash Chandra Arora CR No: 108/2017 which was addressed to SHO, PS Janakpuri would show that same was written in order to highlight the grievances of the respondent against the revisionist as the water supply to the premises of respondent was restricted and the said letter dated 19.10.2015 does not show that there was any intention on the part of respondent to cause harm to the reputation of revisionist.
19. Ld. Counsel for the respondent has further contended that if the contents of letter dated 19.10.2015 are read in entirety, the same would show that no offence under Section 499 IPC is made out and no ground for summoning was made out. Ld. Counsel for the respondent has further contended that even if the contents of letter dated 19.10.2015 show that insult was inflicted upon the revisionist , then same would also not amount to commission of offence under Section 499 IPC. Ld. Counsel for the respondent has contended that there is no merits in the revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
20. Ld. Counsel for the respondent has relied upon the following decisions:
(i) M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & ors.,. (1998) 5 Supreme Court Cases 749.
(ii) Standard Chartered Bank Vs. Vinay Kumar Sood & ors. , Crl. M.C. 3828/2007 of Hon'ble CR No: 108/2017 page 11 of 24 DOJ 06.10.2018 S.K. Bhat Vs. Kailash Chandra Arora CR No: 108/2017 High Court of Delhi.
(iii) Prof. Imtiaz Ahmad Vs. Durdana Zamir, IA No. 10367/2007 in CS (OS) 569/2006 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
21. The grievance of the revisionist is that by circulating the letter dated 19.10.2015, the respondent has made defamatory allegations against him which are aimed at lowering his esteem in the eyes of others. In Para 13 and Para 14 of the complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the complainant (revisionist herein) has mentioned about his grievances as:
13. That besides false and frivolous allegations and accusation against the Complainant, the following averments have been made in the defamatory letter dated 19.10.2015 with the sole intention to tarnish the Complainant image in the eyes of his employer, friends, relatives and neighbours;
" I am perplexed to gauge the intentions of this literate person, a decorated officer having served the Indian Air Force and now working as a commercial pilot could behave so lunatic who might end up as a colossal threat to the lives of various people and lead to total loss to the company he is associated with; only reminds me of air crashes caused by analogous psychopaths."
"8. The Chief Vigilance Officer-Smt. S. Narendra JDG, DGCA FOR INFORMATION PLEASE. IF ILL-BALANCED PILOTS ARE ENGAGED IN SERVICES, THEY TURN TO BE POTENTIAL THREAT TO INNOCENT LIVES"
CR No: 108/2017 page 12 of 24 DOJ 06.10.2018 S.K. Bhat Vs. Kailash Chandra Arora CR No: 108/2017
14. That pursuant to the above mentioned false complaints addressed to various authorities, police officials and other persons from different departments started frequently visiting the house of Complainant which caused humiliation to the Complainant and also lowered his reputation in the eyes of the neighbours and society in general.
22. In Arundhati Sapru Vs. Yash Mehra, Crl. M.C. 581/2013, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has been pleased to observe:
10. The criminal law on defamation has been codified and is contained in section 499 to 502 of the Indian Penal Code. For an offence of defamation as defined under section 499 IPC, three essential ingredients are required, to be fulfilled as laid down in the case of Standard Chartered Bank v. Vinay Kumar Sood, 2010 CriL.J. 1277:-
i. Making or publishing any imputation concerning any person;
ii. Such imputation must have been made by words either spoken or intended to be read or by signs or by visible representations. Iii. The said imputation must have been made with the intention to harm or with knowledge or having reason to believe that it will harm the reputation of the person concerned."
23. The letter dated 19.10.2015 which has been written by respondent to SHO, PS Janakpuri is Ex.CW1/1 CR No: 108/2017 page 13 of 24 DOJ 06.10.2018 S.K. Bhat Vs. Kailash Chandra Arora CR No: 108/2017 and copies of the same have been sent to following :
1. Senior Citizens Cell of Delhi Police & Bhagidari Cell of Govt. of NCT Delhi, B-2/73-B, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi-110029.
2. The Senior Citizen Cell- under Delhi Police 1st Floor, Police Head Quarters, MSO Building, IP Estate, New Delhi.
3. The DCP- West District PS- Rajouri Garden, Delhi.
011-25453992/[email protected]
4. Special CP- Crime 23490203/splcp-crime-dl @nic.in
5. Mr. S.K. Bhat- through Courier/hand delivery( Duly Signed) with information that permanent remedy is being obtained through respective court of law at his risk and cost.
6. RWA- Managing Committee for information please.
7. The CMO- I/C, Grievance Cell, Directorate of Health Services , F-17, Karkardooma, Delhi- 110032.
8. The Chief Vigilance Officer - Smt. S. Narendra JDG DGCA, New Delhi.
[email protected] - For Information please. If a Ill- balanced pilots are engaged in services, they turn to be potential threat to innocent lives.
9. The concerned Airlines- for information please.
24. Perusal of the contents of letter dated CR No: 108/2017 page 14 of 24 DOJ 06.10.2018 S.K. Bhat Vs. Kailash Chandra Arora CR No: 108/2017 19.10.2015 Ex.PW1/1 shows that by way of said letter, the respondent has made complaint to SHO, PS Janakpuri thereby making request for lodging FIR for violation of Easement rights by the individual under various sections, u/s 93 of Delhi Police Manual/Act and under Sections 270, 277 and 430 IPC regarding infringement of his right to enjoy his property
25. The revisionist is aggrieved by the following contents of letter dated 19.10.2015 Ex.CW1/1:
" I am perplexed to gauge the intentions of this literate person, a decorated officer having served the Indian Air Force and now working as a commercial pilot could behave so lunatic who might end up as a colossal threat to the lives of various people and lead to total loss to the company he is associated with; only reminds me of air crashes caused by analogous psychopaths."
26. The revisionist is also aggrieved by the circulation of the letter dated 19.10.2015 to various persons/authorities to whom the copies of letter is sent including Chief Vigilance Officer, DGCA. In the impugned order dated 07.12.2016 Ld. Trial Court has been pleased to observe :
7. Admittedly, there was dispute between the parties regarding the water tanks allegedly installed by the respondent on the roof owned by the complainant. Some correspondence in the CR No: 108/2017 page 15 of 24 DOJ 06.10.2018 S.K. Bhat Vs. Kailash Chandra Arora CR No: 108/2017 form of letters took place between both the parties i.e. complainant and respondent regarding the water tanks but matter was not sorted out between them due to which the respondent vide letter dated 19.10.2015 sent a complaint to SHO, Janak Puri, against the complainant herein, in which he mentioned the aforesaid para to which complainant is stating that respondent has defamed him.
8. In my view, the relevant words mentioned in the letter dated 19.10.2015, pointed out by the complainant, does not per-se constitute an offence of defamation. Every dispute cannot be given colour of criminal offence. As already observed and admittedly, there was dispute between the parties relating to some water tanks which complainant is trying to give colour of criminal offence. CW2 examined by the complainant in pre-
summoning evidence has also stated that there was a petty dispute between the parties. Respondent undisputedly is a senior citizen and as per own case of the complainant he had dispute with the respondent regarding the installation of water tanks. This complaint seems to be the outcome of over-sensitive nature of the complainant which may be due to his job profile. In view of abovesaid discussion, no ground for summoning of respondent is made out.
Accordingly, this complaint is dismissed.
27. In Mohd. Abdulla Khan Vs. Prakash K., CR No: 108/2017 page 16 of 24 DOJ 06.10.2018 S.K. Bhat Vs. Kailash Chandra Arora CR No: 108/2017 (2018) 1 Supreme Court Cases 615, Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold :
14. In the context of the facts of the present case, first of all, it must be established that the matter printed and offered for sale is defamatory within the meaning of the expression under Section 499 IPC. If so proved, the next step would be to examine the question whether the accused committed the acts which constitute the offence of which he is charged with the requisite intention or knowledge etc. to make his acts culpable.
28. Hence for summoning any person for commission of offence under Sections 499/500 IPC, first of all it is to be established that the letter dated 19.10.2015 Ex.CW1/1 contains defamatory contents within the meaning of expression under Section 499 IPC.
29. In Prof. Imtiaz Ahmad Vs. Durdana Zamir (Supra), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has been pleased to hold:
7. Under law of defamation, the test of defamatory nature of a statement is its tendency to incite an adverse opinion or feeling of other persons towards the Plaintiff. A statement is to be judged by the standard of the ordinary, right thinking members of the society at the relevant time. The words must have resulted in the CR No: 108/2017 page 17 of 24 DOJ 06.10.2018 S.K. Bhat Vs. Kailash Chandra Arora CR No: 108/2017 Plaintiff to be shunned or evaded or regarded with the feeling of hatred, contempt, ridicule, fear, dislike or dis- esteem or to convey an imputation to him or disparaging him or his office, profession, calling, trade or business. The defamation is a wrong done by a person to another's reputation. Since, it is considered that a man's reputation, in a way, is his property and reputation may be considered to be more valuable than any other form of property.
Reputation of a man primarily and basically is the opinion of friends, relatives, acquittance or general public about a man. It is his esteem in the eyes of others. The reputation spread by communication of thought and information from one to another. Where a person alleges that his reputation has been damaged, it only means he has been lowered in the eyes of right thinking persons of the society or his friends/relatives. It is not enough for a person to sue for words which merely injure his feeling or cause annoyance to him. Injury to feeling of a man cannot be made a basis for claiming of damages on the ground of defamation. Thus, the words must be such which prejudice a man's reputation and are so offensive so as to lower a man's dignity in the eyes of others. Insult in itself is not a cause of action for damages on the ground of defamation.
CR No: 108/2017 page 18 of 24 DOJ 06.10.2018 S.K. Bhat Vs. Kailash Chandra Arora CR No: 108/2017
8. Where the words are used without giving impression of an oblique meaning but the Plaintiff pleads an innuendo, asking the Court to read the words in a manner in which the Plaintiff himself understands it, the Plaintiff has to plead that the libel was understood by the readers with the knowledge of subject or extensive facts as was being understood by the Plaintiff.
30. The contention of the revisionist is that the contents of part of letter dated 19.10.2015 Ex.CW1/1 has brought him into disrepute and lowered his estimation in the eyes of others. In this regard it would be worth referring to the testimony of CW2 Sh.P.M.Rai who was President of the C-3 Block, Janakpuri Residents' Welfare Association and who is a witness of the complainant. CW2 stated in his examination that after going through the letter which was received from the respondent, he conducted enquiry into the conduct of complaint and found that there was a petty dispute going on between Wg. Commander S.K. Bhatt/revisionist and Kailash Chandra Arora ( respondent herein) and he found the allegations as contained in the letter are false. CW2 further stated that being President of RWA society, he asked the members of the governing body regarding this issue. Hence as per the testimony of CW2 Sh. P.M. Rai, after going through contents of the letter dated CR No: 108/2017 page 19 of 24 DOJ 06.10.2018 S.K. Bhat Vs. Kailash Chandra Arora CR No: 108/2017 19.10.2015 he understood the dispute between the parties as the petty dispute and he found the allegations in the letter to be false. Hence, CW2 Sh. P.M. Rai who is the witness of the complainant/revisionist has failed to substantiate the allegations of complainant/revisionist that the libel was understood by him(CW2) with the knowledge of subject or extensive facts as has been understood by the revisionist.
31. It is also to be noted that contents of the letter dated 19.10.2015 Ex.PWCW1/1 are to be read as a whole and are not to be read in piece-meal or bits so as to give different meaning to different parts of said letter. CW2 who is the public person after going through the contents of letter Ex.CW1/1 has given meaning to the contents of letter Ex.CW1/1 as reflection of the petty dispute between the parties.
32. In Prof. Imtiaz Ahmad Vs. Durdana Zamir ( Supra), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has been pleased to hold:
10. ____________________________________________________ __________________________ As has already been observed above the statement is to be judged by the standard of an ordinary person. The alleged words must have resulted in the plaintiff to be shunned or evaded or inculcated a feeling of hatred and condemn.
33. Although the revisionist has pleaded that copy of CR No: 108/2017 page 20 of 24 DOJ 06.10.2018 S.K. Bhat Vs. Kailash Chandra Arora CR No: 108/2017 letter dated 19.10.2015 was also sent to DGCA but the revisionist has nowhere stated that on the basis of contents of letter dated 19.10.2015, he has been shunned or any action has been taken to his prejudice or that the contents of the letter dated 19.10.2015 were considered by CVO, DGCA as defamatory in nature and they have caused aspirations on the conduct , integrity or efficiency of the revisionist.
34. The scope of exercise of revisional jurisdiction has been considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chandra Babu alias Moses v. State and others (2015) 8 SCC 774 and Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke and others (2015) 3 SCC
123.
35. In Chandra Babu alias Moses v. State and others (2015) 8 SCC 774, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has been pleased to observe that:
11. First, we shall dwell upon the issue whether the High Court, in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, should have adverted to the merits of the case in extenso. As the factual matrix would reveal, the learned Single Judge has dwelled upon in great detail on the statements of the witnesses to arrive at the conclusion that there are remarkable discrepancies with regard to the facts and there is nothing wrong with the investigation. In fact, he has noted certain facts and deduced certain conclusions, which, as we find, are beyond the exercise of revisional CR No: 108/2017 page 21 of 24 DOJ 06.10.2018 S.K. Bhat Vs. Kailash Chandra Arora CR No: 108/2017 jurisdiction. It is well settled in law that inherent as well as revisional jurisdiction should be exercised cautiously.
Normally, a revisional jurisdiction should be exercised on a question of law. However, when factual appreciation is involved, then it must find place in the class of cases resulting in a perverse finding. Basically, the power is required to be exercised so that justice is done and there is no abuse of power by the Court. [see Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander (2012) 9 SCC 460].
36. In Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke and others (2015) 3 SCC 123, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has been pleased to observe that:
14. In the case before us, the learned Magistrate went through the entire records of the case, not limiting to the report filed by the police and has passed a reasoned order holding that it is not a fit case to take cognizance for the purpose of issuing process to the appellant. Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is perverse or the view taken by the court is wholly unreasonable or there is non- consideration of any relevant material or there is palpable misreading of records, the revisional court is not justified in setting aside the order, merely because another view is possible. The revisional court is not meant to act as an appellate court. The whole purpose of the revisional jurisdiction is to preserve the power in the court to do justice in accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence. Revisional power of the court CR No: 108/2017 page 22 of 24 DOJ 06.10.2018 S.K. Bhat Vs. Kailash Chandra Arora CR No: 108/2017 under Sections 397 to 401 of Cr.PC is not to be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction.
37. In Chandra Babu alias Moses v. State and others (2015) 8 SCC 774 and Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke and others (2015) 3 SCC 123, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that revisional jurisdiction should be exercised cautiously and normally, a revisional jurisdiction should be exercised on a question of law and the finding of the court is not to be interfered unless the same is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously.
38. The present revision petition is directed against the impugned order dated 07.12.2016 wherein after considering the entire material on record, the Ld. Trial CR No: 108/2017 page 23 of 24 DOJ 06.10.2018 S.K. Bhat Vs. Kailash Chandra Arora CR No: 108/2017 Court has arrived at the conclusion that the relevant words mentioned in the letter dated 19.10.2015 as pointed out by the complainant do not per se constitute an offence of defamation.
39. Looking at the nature of allegations as made in the complaint filed before Ld. Trial Court and in view of aforesaid pronouncements, I am of the view that judicial discretion has been exercised by Ld. Trial Court properly and in accordance with provisions of law. I find no infirmity in the impugned order dated 07.12.2016. The revision petition is devoid of merits and same is dismissed.
40. TCR be sent back along with copy of this judgment to the court concerned. Revision file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open (HARISH DUDANI) Court on 06.10.2018 Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-I Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.
Digitally signed HARISH by HARISH
DUDANI
DUDANI Date: 2018.10.06
15:16:21 +0530
CR No: 108/2017 page 24 of 24 DOJ 06.10.2018