Criminal Misc. No.120-MA of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.120-MA of 2008 Date of decision : 8.9.2008 Harbhajan Singh ....Appellant Versus Sohan Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Vijay Rana, Advocate for the appellant S. D. ANAND, J. The essential plea of petitioner was that the respondents had defamed him by making false allegations in a complaint addressed to the S.D.M., Nakodar, who held an enquiry into the matter and found the same to be false. Learned Trial Magistrate invalidated the presentation made by the petitioner by noticing the following facts:- “The alleged application moved to S.D.M., Nakodar giving cause of action to the complainant is not proved on the file. ....The judgments relied upon by the complainant are already set aside. ...... The enquiry regarding encroachment of the government land is pending in the revenue courts.” Qua the only witness (Gurdev Singh), examined by the petitioner-complainant the learned Trial Magistrate recorded as under:- “Further, Ex. D-7 is the copy of demarcation dated 145.12.2000 showing the unlawful encroachment made by Gurdev Singh who is only witness supporting the case of the Criminal Misc. No.120-MA of 2008 -2- **** complainant. There is no other independent witness appeared to support the case of the complainant and CW-2 Gurdev Singh is an interested witness who is himself facing litigation qua encroachment of the village land.” In the context of the allegation that the respondent no.1 had defamed the complainant, the Trial Court recorded as under:- “It was left to the authorities to take into account the allegations and it does not amount to publication or an offence punishable under section 500 IPC. The facts of the present complainant at my hand are squarely covered in the facts of this case.” The facts proved on record indicate that the respondent/accused had made a complaint to the S.D.M., Nakodar alleging in the course thereof, that the petitioner-accused had encroached upon the Government land. An enquiry into the matter was held by the officer. The respondent reiterated the allegation in the course of the enquiry and in the presence of a number of persons, out of whom only Gurdev Singh came to be examined at the trial. The evidentiary value of the testimony of Gurdev Singh has been implicated in an earlier part of this judgment. In view of the fact that the enquiry into the matter is already under way at the hands of revenge authorities, it cannot be said that allegations made by the respondents were factually wrong. Even otherwise, a person making an allegation against another before a public authority cannot be said to have defamed the latter, particularly when the allegation merely pertained to the encroachment of the Government property. There was no other attribution at the hands of respondents vis-a- Criminal Misc. No.120-MA of 2008 -3- **** vis petitioner. I find that the findings of fact recorded by the learned Trial Judge are relatable to the material obtaining on the file and there is nothing perverse in the appreciation of evidence by the learned Trial Judge. Dismissed. September 08, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE