Crl. Misc. No. M-16053 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-16053 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 21.02.2012 Ramel Dass ......Petitioner versus Avdesh Kumar Upadhaya and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Jatinder Kumar Verma, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Gurinder Pal Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 1 Mr. Naveneet Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 2 Mr. Rajeshwar Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 3 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** RITU BAHRI , J. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of order dated 16.02.2010 (Annexure P-11), passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon and order dated 25.04.2007 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate Gurgaon (Annexure P- 10) whereby the complaint filed by the complainant under Sections 499/500 IPC was dismissed at the summoning stage. Ramel Dass-petitioner/complainant filed a complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Gurgaon under Sections 499/500 IPC against the respondents as the petitioner/complainant had given loan of Crl. Misc. No. M-16053 of 2011 (O&M) -2- Rs. 2,10,000/- on 30.08.2004 to respondent No. 1 for his personal necessity. The respondent No. 1 also executed a pro-note to this effect in favour of the petitioner. However, when the petitioner demanded his money back along with interest from respondent No. 1, he threatened the petitioner and manhandled him and his family members. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the complaint under Sections 323/452/506/34 IPC. Thereafter, the Court below has took cognizance of the same and issued summons to the accused/respondent No. 1 for appearance, vide order dated 19.10.2006 (Annexure P-2). The petitioner also filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,10,000/- which is pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn) Gurgaon. The learned Court has issued summons to respondent No. 1 in this case also. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 got published a disgraceful article as “Committee key name per ek lakh enthey/mangey janne per jaan se marne key dhamki” which was defamatory and objectionable in nature. This article was published in Dainik Bhaskar on 31.01.2006 and in Panjab Kesari on 01.02.2006. Thereafter, the petitioner issued a legal notice to respondent No. 1 making the demand of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation and also asked him to apologise. When the accused did not oblige the complainant, the present complaint was filed for offence under Sections 499/500 IPC. After going through the facts of the present case, both the Courts have dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner/complainant as it falls in the 10th exception of Section 499 IPC. 10th exception of Section 499 IPC reads as under:- Exception 10: Caution intended for good of a person to whom conveyed or for public good:- It is not Defamation to convey a caution, in good faith, to one person against Crl. Misc. No. M-16053 of 2011 (O&M) -3- another, provided that such caution be intended for the good faith of the person to whom it is conveyed, or in the some person in whom that person is interested, or for the public good. It is admitted by the petitioner that he has filed a civil suit for recovery of Rs. 2,10,000/- which is pending. The remarks in the complaint do not lower down the prestige of the petitioner/complainant. No ground is made out to interfere in the order dated 16.02.2010 (Annexure P-11), passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon and order dated 25.04.2007 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate Gurgaon (Annexure P-10) Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE 21.02.2012 G.Arora