JUDGMENT J.D. Jain, J.(1) The petitioner is employed as an Inspector in Delhi Police.In July 1976 he v-'as posted as an Inspector in AntiCorruption Branch of Delhi Police.On 1st July, 1976, he lad a trap against one Raj Singh on the complaint of one Ram Chander for demanding illegal gratification.It is a complaint for not registering the case."(2) On coming to know of it, the respondent then posted as Additional District Sessions Judge at Delhi instituted a complaint.against the .petitioner in December 1977 under sectin 500, Indian Penal Code, for defamation.He inter alia .averred that the petitioner was posted as Station House.On 30th.July, 1975, he tortured to.death on Harnam Singh, a retired School teacher of Kingsway Camp even though there was no FIR.against,.him, An.attempt was made to dispose of.the dead body without postmortem examination.The respondent intervened and.State v. Raj Singh in the Court of Shri D.C. Aggarwal, Special Judge, on 18th November, 1977 the petitioner was examined as a prosecution witness being the investigating Officer.During the course of his cross-examination.he, inter alia, deposed that : "TWOcases for damages against me, Union of India S. D. M. were filed by Shri H.K. S. Malik through his brother and mother sinise I had not obliged him in forcibly occupying plot No. C-5, Rana Pratap Bagh.There is a complaint case against me pending regarding the same plot since I did noi oblige Sh.H. K. S. Malik for convening a civil case into a criminal case regarding the same plot.postmortem examination had to be carried out.Consequently, an inquiry under the Punjab Police, Rules was instituted and the respondent was examined as a witness in that inquiry on 14th June, 1976, by the S. D. M. Kingsway Camp..The S.D.M found the accused prima facie guilty of murder and submitted his report I accordingly.Eventually, acase under Section 302, Indiain penal Code, being F.I.R. No. 1009 was registered against the petitioner on 9th September, 1977 and the respondent was mentioned therein as the prime mover.The respondent further alleged that the petitioner had been trying to prevent him from appearing as a witness against him in the said case since July 1976 and he had conveyed even.threats.Further, the petitioner met the respondent personally three or four times with a request not to depose as a witness against him but the respondent was not disuaded from doing his dirty.So, the petitioner considers the respondent as his enemy.On 31st October, 1977, the respondent learnt of a plan to murder him at night and he took immediate precautions.However, one SatpalSharma,who was an eye witness in the aforesaid murder case, was brutally stabbed on that night.Thus, the contention of the respondent in the complaint was that the petitioner harboured a grudge against him and, therefore, he made the aforesaid statement in the Court of the Special Judge with a view to harm the reputation of the respondent.He asserted that the aforesaid statement carried, inter alia, an imputation that the respondent was a person of depraved moral character as to commit acts' which constituted offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code.While denying each and every imputation made against him by the petitioner, he asserted that the same had been made intentionally and knowingly to lower the moral character of the respondent in the estimation of others.In order to substantiate his contention he extracted the following passage from the judgment dated 26th November, 1977, of Shri D. C. Aggarwal, Special Judge, in the above mentioned case : "INthese circumstances it has to be taken notice of that as against Inspector .Shamsher Singh, admittedly a murder case was registered at Police Station Kingsway Camp although according to him it was a false case.Of course, I would not attach importance to the case of damages filed against him by Shri H. K. S. Malik (now Additional District Judge) as derogatory to his credibility as police officer, as he explained that that case had been filed only because he had not allowed Shri H. K, S. Malik and his mother to ford' bly Occupy a plot No. C-5 Rana Pratap Bagh." .On the same day the learned Magistrate passed an order summoning the petitioner for trial under section 500, Indian Penal Code.In the meanwhile, he entered appearance before the Metropolitan Magistrate.The substance of the accusation was read over and explained to him on 13th January, 1978, as required by Section 251, Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code), and he was asked to show cause why he should not be punished for an offence punishable under Section 500, Indian Penal Code.Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has come up in revision against the said order.

Cited provisions: Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code