Mukesh Kumar And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 1 October, 2008
been convicted for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instrument Act where these allegations were made. In this
background, it was observed that the appellant-respondent had
made false and malicious allegations with an intention to harm or
knowing or having reasons to believe that such imputation will harm
the reputation. It was in this background that prayer for quashing was
declined as what weighed with the Court was conviction recorded by
a Court of competent jurisdiction in regard to the allegation made
being false. Such a situation does not arise in the present case. The
present case apparently is covered by the ratio of law laid down in
Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande's case (supra) and Bashir Ulla
Khan (supra). The words statedly used by petitioner No.2, leading to
summoning for defamation apparently would not indicate that these
were made with an intention to defame respondent No.2. They were
primarily aimed at for setting the police in motion against him and
made before an authority, which was competent and lawful to take
action in the matter. The present case, as such, is clearly covered by
Exception 8 of Section 499 IPC and would exempt the petitioners
from offence of defamation, as provided under Section 499 IPC. The
continuance of the proceedings against the petitioners, pursuant to
the summoning order, as such, would nothing but an abuse of
process of the Court. Whether the words used and alleged to be
defamatory would be so, may also be a question which ofcourse
need not be gone into in view of the finding otherwise recorded that
offence is not made out.