Charanjit Singh Vs. Surendra Narayan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (INDORE BENCH)
M. Cr. C. No. 5272 of 2005
Decided On: 16.05.2007
Appellants: Charanjitsingh s/o Harnamsingh Chadha
Vs.
Respondent: Surendra Narayan s/o Dhirendra Narayan Gupta
Judges/Coram:
S.C. Vyas, J.
ORDER
S.C. Vyas,
The order passed by IInd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore, in Criminal Case No. 1981/2005 on dated 28-10-2005 for taking cognizance of the offence punishable under section 500 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and directed issuance of a bailable warrant of Rs. 2,000/- against the present petitioner has been called in question by way of this petition filed under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code and prayer has been made for quashment of the proceedings of the criminal case.
Short facts of the case are that respondent is the husband of Late Smt. Saroj Gupta who was earlier working on the post of Principal in Madhav College, Ujjain. During that period she filed a criminal complaint under section 120B, 192 and 500 of Indian Penal Code against the present petitioner and cognizance was taken in that complaint by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ujjain. That order was challenged by the present petitioner in the Court of Sessions Judge, Ujjain who allowed that revision and petitioner was discharged. The petitioner was also working as Vice Chancellor, Devi AhilyaVishwaVidyalaya, Indore, at the relevant time. It is alleged that during meeting of Executive Council of University on 27-1-2005, present petitioner uttered some obscene words with intent to defame deceased Saroj Gupta. It is also alleged that she had already died much prior to this incident. The meeting was attended by one Smt. MeeraChouradiya who wrote a letter to the present petitioner and the letter was published in daily newspaper. It is alleged in the complaint that after the publication of the letter respondent/complainant came to know regarding the incident and felt hurt because of the conduct of the present petitioner, who unnecessarily used abusive language towards a lady who already died and this imputation levelled by the present petitioner was intended to harm the reputation and character of deceased Saroj Gupta and amounts defamation as per the provisions of section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the complaint was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore, who after recording the statement of respondent took cognizance of the offence and issued process against the present petitioner.
Learned Sr. Counsel Shri S.C. Bagadiya appearing for the petitioner submitted that admittedly respondent was not present in the meeting where alleged imputation was made by the present petitioner against deceased Saroj Gupta and, therefore, he could not have any personal knowledge of this fact. It has also been submitted that respondent on oath unnecessarily used those obscene words which were neither uttered by the present petitioner nor were communicated by' anyone to the complainant. He has drawn attention of this Court towards the complaint of respondent Surendra Gupta, who in Paragraph No. 3 said that he immediately met with Smt. MeeraChouradiya in this connection and she told him that some obscene words have been spoken against deceased Saroj Gupta by the present petitioner in presence of other members of the Executive Council.
This portion of the statement clearly shows that the statement given by this witness even under section 200 of Criminal Procedure Code, is not admissible in evidence being only hearsay evidence and, therefore, is no evidence. The best person in this behalf could be any of them who attended the meeting of the Executive Council, but none of them was examined by the respondent before trial Court under section 202 of Criminal Procedure Code.
A typed copy of letter addressed to respondent by one MeeraChouradiya has also been filed before trial Court. That letter contains many other matters and only one line has been written in that letter regarding deceased Smt. Saroj Gupta, wherein it has been said that some unparliamentary language was used against her. But even this letter is only a typed copy of the document and the original is not there. The letter has also nowhere states that any imputation was made by the present petitioner regarding deceased Smt. Saroj Gupta with intent to harm or with knowledge or belief that such imputation will harm the reputation of such person. Therefore, this letter also does not show anything which may amount to an offence punishable under sections 500 and 294of Indian Penal Code. A newspaper cutting was also filed in the trial Court, but in that newspaper also the words spoken by the present petitioner defaming deceased Smt. Saroj Gupta have nowhere been published. The newspaper report is a simple repetition of the letter written by MeeraChouradiya and in sum and substance of the letter and the report is that during the meeting of the Executive Council present petitioner lost his temper on some occasion and had some times used unparliamentary language. Loosing temper and then in that situation using unparliamentary language cannot be said to be an offence of defamation, because for the purpose of an offence under section 500 of Indian Penal Code, as defined in section 499 of Indian Penal Code, it is necessary to show that the accused intended or knew or at least had reason to believe that such statement would harm the reputation of the persons concerned.
In the case of BalrajKhanna and others vs. Moti Ram, MANU/SC/0076/1971 : AIR 1971 SC 1389, when a complaint was made against several persons of defamation, then it was observed that "it will be highly desirable, no doubt, that if the actual words stated to have been used by an accused, and which are all to be defamatory are reproduced by the complainant. The actual words used or the statement made may be reproduced verbatim, by the complainant if the words are few and the statement in very brief."
Unless the statement made by the accused or words spoken by him are proved, it is difficult to say that the accused was having any knowledge or reason to believe that by using those words or making that statement, he is going to harm the reputation of some persons.
In the facts of the present case from the whole of the record of the trial Court, there appears no evidence except the hearsay statement given by the respondent to show that present petitioner had spoken some words or made any statement with intent to harm or having reason to believe that thereby he is going to harm the reputation of deceased Smt. Saroj Gupta.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also brought this fact to the knowledge of this Court that in the lifetime Smt. Saroj Gupta a criminal complaint was filed by her against the present petitioner and before she could be examined under section 200 of Criminal Procedure Code she died. Thereafter, present respondent was examined in that case and the complaint was registered. Ultimately in revision, that order was set aside and when it was challenged before this Court then by order dated 14-9-2005 that criminal revision filed by the respondent was also dismissed. He submitted that after dismissal of that revision immediately after two months on 26-9-2005 present complaint was filed by the respondent, which shows his mala fide intention, because in the complaint, the incident has been shown as that of 27-1-2005, but the complaint was only filed after dismissal of earlier revision filed by the present respondent against the same petitioner, regarding earlier similar matter. It has been argued that the conduct of respondent was not fair and he wanted to prosecute the present petitioner any how and that is why this complaint has been filed.
To demonstrate all these facts certified copy of order dated 14-9-2005 passed in Criminal Revision No. 188/2005 has been filed. It has been contended by learned counsel for the respondent that no new document can be filed during the course of this petition, but the judgment which has been shown by learned counsel for the respondent is not a new document, but a judgment of this Court and this Court being Court of record its judgment can always be shown at any time.
After perusing the record of the trial Court, considering the material which was placed before the Court below at the time of passing the order taking cognizance, this Court is satisfied that Court at the time of passed of impugned order which can even prima facie show that present petitioner has committed, offence punishable under section 500 of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the order passed by learned Court below was only an abuse of process of law and is liable to be quashed.
Lastly, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that an opportunity be provided to the respondent to lead further evidence in the matter. In this regard he relied on the provisions of section 398 of Criminal Procedure Code and submitted that on the same analogy trial Court be directed to take further evidence.
But the powers under section 398 can only be exercised in the matters when the complaint was dismissed under section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code or sub-section (4) of section 204 of Criminal Procedure Code or in case of any person accused of an offence who has been discharged. In the facts of the present case, the petitioner was not discharged by anyone or the complaint of the respondent was not dismissed by the Magistrate and, therefore, in the facts of the case it is not desirable to give any direction as provided in section 398 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
After due consideration of the entire material which was on record before learned Judicial Magistrate at the time of passing the impugned order, this Court is of the considered view that there was no material before that Court to take cognizance of the offence punishable under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner.
Therefore, the order dated 28-10-2005 which was passed by learned Magistrate in Criminal Case No. 1981/2005 for taking cognizance of the offence punishable under section 500 of Indian Penal Code and for issuance of bailable warrant against the present petitioner is not sustainable in law being only abuse of process of law and is hereby quashed.