Criminal Misc. M. No. 47559 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. M No.47559 of 2007 Date of Decision: March 24, 2009 Bir Singh & Others ...........Petitioners Versus Rajbir Singh ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Pritam Saini, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab ** Sabina, J. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C. For short) seeking quashing of complaint dated 24.11.2001 (Annexure P3) and summoning order dated 9.7.2002 (Annexure P6) . The case of the complainant, as noticed by the trial Court, in para 1 of the impugned order (Annexure P6) is as under:- "The present complaint has been filed by the complainant against the arrayed accused on the allegations that complainant is practicing medical practitioner; that he is B.A.M.S. and running a clinic in the name of Arya Hospital, Sanoli Road, Panipat; that he belongs to a very reputed family and his father is a senior leader in Indian Lok Dal in Haryana and has been President of Municipal Committee, Jind and at present he is Chairman of the Criminal Misc. M. No. 47559 of 2007 2 Improvement Trust, Jind; that complainant after starting his professional clinic shifted from Jind to Panipat and at present he is residing at the abovesaid address with his family. Complainant submitted that accused are mischievous persons and hold a gang of some miscreants and their only aim to organize such nuisance is to defame the reputed persons and grab the money; that they had written some writings on a paper and levelled false allegations against the father of the complainant and they distributed it and the people of Panipat after getting photostat; that in the said writings it is written that Shri Abhey Singh Arya and other have been socially boycotted and people at large have been asked not to have any relations with them that after getting this appear dt. 8.7.2001 some innocent persons who were patients and clients of the complainant's shop, stopped themselves to come to the complainant and in this way, mentally and financially damages were caused to the complainant and his family that the act of the accused is only to defame the reputation of the complainant in the public at large. Hence, the present complaint." Complainant led his preliminary evidence and on the basis of the same, the trial Court passed the summoning order dated 9.7.2002 (Annexure P6) and the accused were ordered to be summoned to face the trial under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) Learned counsel for the petitionr has submitted that so far as the resolution dated 8.7.2001 (Annexure P2) alleged to have been distributed by the petitioner is concerned, it did not make out a case of defamation. No defamatory word was used against the respondent in the Criminal Misc. M. No. 47559 of 2007 3 said resolution. As per the said resolution, father of the petitioner had been socially boycotted in a decision taken by the Panchayat convened by nine villages on 13.5.2001. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that the respondent was running a clinic in the name of Arya Hospital, Sanoli Road, Panipat and was a medical practitioner. By distributing of resolution dated 8.7.2001 (Annexure P2) in his locality, the practice of respondent had suffered. The offence constituting defamation has been defined under Section 499 IPC and the same is as under:- "Section 499. Defamation Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, of defame that person.” A perusal of the resolution dated 8.7.2001 (Anneuxre P2) reveals that the father of the complainant i.e. Abhey Singh Arya was socially boycotted by Panchayat convened by nine villages under the chairmanship of Chaudhary Zile Singh. It was agreed in the Panchayat that Abhey Singh Arya, Parkash Piarey Lal Ranjit, Banwari etc. had agreed that they may be paid Rs. 2,00,000/- and registration charges and they would get the sale deed registered in favour of widow and children of Sher Singh. However, the said persons did not appear before the Panchayat and had, thus, shown disrespect and had defrauded the widow and children of Sher Singh. Abhey Singh Arya had taken the responsibility that he would get the Criminal Misc. M. No. 47559 of 2007 4 land transferred in favour of children of Sher Singh but had thereafter refused to do so. Hence, on 8.7.2001, Panchayat along with entire Saini Samaj has taken a decision that Abhey Singh Arya and others be socially boycotted. .The distribution of the said resolution cannot be said to be constituting the offence of defamation. It was a resolution passed during Panchayat meet and hence, even if it was distributed in the area where the respondent was practicing, no offence of defamation can be said to be made out in terms of Section 499 IPC punishable under Section 500 IPC. It has been held by the Apex Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court cases 335, as under:- “The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. Can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently chennelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases whereinsuch power should be exercised:- (1)Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complainant, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2)Where the allegations in the first information report Criminal Misc. M. No. 47559 of 2007 5 and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1)of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3)Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do no disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4)Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5)Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6)Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of aggrieved party. Criminal Misc. M. No. 47559 of 2007 6 (7)Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” Accordingly, since no offence is apparently made out against the petitioner even if the contentions of the complainant are taken as correct on their face value, the continuation of criminal proceedings would be nothing but an abuse of process of Court. Hence, this petition is allowed. The complaint dated 24.11.2001 (Annexure P3) and summoning order dated 9.7.2002 (Anneuxre P6) are set aside. (Sabina) Judge March 24,2009 arya