IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- Crl. Misc. No. M- 9234 of 2008 Date of Decision:- 19.5.2009 Chunni Lal and another .... Petitioners Versus Ashok Kumar .... Respondent. Present:- Mr. K.K.Garg, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. B.P.K.Brar, Advocate, for the respondent. M.M.S.BEDI. (J) (Oral) Petitioners seek quashing of criminal complaint Annexure P-1 filed by respondent Ashok Kumar against him and the summoning order Annexure P-2. The Judicial Magistrate First Class has summoned the petitioner to face proceedings under Section 500 IPC. So far as the allegation levelled by the complainant in the complaint that the petitioners connived with each other and in order to cause harm to the complainant have filed false complaint against the complainant-respondent and his father at Police Station Tapa. The complainant had been summoned and harassed. FIR was registered against the complainant under Section 420 IPC on 23.7.2003. Challan was presented, charge was framed on 17.12.2003. Against the charge-sheet the complainant -respondent filed a petition. The same was allowed and vide order ated 1.5.2004, the complainant and his father were discharged in the criminal complaint. The complainant had to file a civil suit for permanent injunction against petitioner No.1 Kewal Ram restraining him from filing false complaints and for proceedings thereon. The said suit was allegedly decreed by Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Barnala, vide judgment and decree dated 13.12.2004. Crl. Misc. No. M- 9234 of 2008 -2- The allegation in the complaint regarding defamation are as follows:- " That after registration of the above case against the complaintant and his father, the accused persons started lowering the reputation of the complainant in the area as well as among the relatives and other friendly circle and in this way defamed the complainant in the area. Due to this the reputation of the complainant has suffered lot. In this way, the accused persons by conniving each other have put at stake with malafide intention the reputation of the complainant. The people have started hating the complainant." A perusal of the above said portion of the complaint indicates that the allegations regarding defamation are absolutely vague uncertain without specifying the day, date or time as to when and how the petitioners had lowered the reputation of the complainant in the area after getting the case registered against the complainant and his father. No name of the person in whose eyes the reputation of the complainant-respondent was lowered stands mentioned in the petition. It is settled principle of law that in order to establish defamation, the following ingradients must be established:- 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 signs; or visible representation; iii) Such imputation must have been made with intention of harming or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will be harming the reputation of the person concerned to whom it is made. Crl. Misc. No. M- 9234 of 2008 -3- The specific words either spoken or intended to be written or the signs or any visible representation has not been mentioned in the complaint to bring the act of the petitioners within the ambit and scope of Section 500 IPC. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in context to the law laid down in State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Ch.Bhajan Lal and Ors., AIR 1992 SC 604, I am of the considered opinion that in case the contents and allegations of the complaint are beleived to be true, no offence of defamation is made out. The petition deserves to be allowed. Petition is allowed. Criminal proceedings, Annexure P-1 and all the proceedings emanating there from are hereby quashed. May 19, 2009 (M.M.S.Bedi) tripti Judge