Crl. Misc. No. M – 36038 of 2009(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- Crl. Misc. No. M – 36038 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision:- 6.4.2010 Surinder Singh Dhillon ... Petitioner Versus Avtar Singh ... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Nandan Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.S.Boparai, Advocate, for the respondent. Gurdev Singh, J (oral) The petitioner – Surinder Singh Dhillon has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the complaint No. 20-A, dated 13.6.2005, filed against him by Avtar Singh- respondent under Sections 499 and 500 IPC, pending in the Court of JMIC, summoning order dated 1.7.2009 and the orders dated 9.10.2009 passed by JMIC, Nabha and 2.11.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Patiala. The case of the petitioner, as pleaded in the petition, is that he was posted as B.D.P.O Nabha and at that time respondent was the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Village Kaidpur. While doing his official duties, he checked the record of the Gram Panchayat for the year 2000-2001, 2001- 2002 and also enquired about the development works got done by the respondent. During that inspection irregularities were found, about which Crl. Misc. No. M – 36038 of 2009(O&M) -2- he wrote a letter No. 192, dated 9.7.2002 to the Director, Village Development and Panchayat Department, Chandigarh. The Deputy Director, Panchayat, while exercising powers of the Director under Section 20(4) of The Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, suspended the respondent on 17.10.2002. In that respect news was published in the local news papers. The respondent filed an appeal against the order of suspension, which was accepted by the Secretary and thereafter the respondent filed the above said complaint, in which he was summoned to stand his trial under Section 499 and 500 IPC, vide order dated 1.7.2009. He appeared before the trial Court and made an application for discharging him on the ground that the Act was done by him in the performance of his official duties. That application was dismissed vide order dated 9.10.2009, against which he filed an appeal, which was also dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala. The said news items were not got published by him and those were published on the basis of general information collected by the reporters of the news papers. Whatever act was done was done by him in discharge of his official duties. The respondent has applied for obtaining sanction of prosecution, which was denied by the State Government vide letter dated 6.5.2005. Notice of the petition was given to the respondent. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that actual facts were published in the news papers and as such it cannot be held that any such offence of defamation was committed by the petitioner. It has not been denied by the respondent that he was the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat and was suspended by the Director Panchayat. Reporting of the Crl. Misc. No. M – 36038 of 2009(O&M) -3- correct facts to the press does not constitute the offence of defamation. He has relied upon Aroon Purie and Others Vs. State of Haryana and another 2007(4) R.C.R (Criminal) 6. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for the respondent that it was on account of personal vendatta that the petitioner got the respondent suspended and against his suspension order, he filed an appeal, which was accepted and the appellate authority recorded a specific finding that the allegations levelled against him were not correct. The news items were got published by the petitioner with a mala fide intention in order to lower the reputation of the petitioner in the eyes of the general public. The offence of defamation is clearly made out from the contents of the complaint and as such there is not ground for quashing the same. He further contended that the orders challenged in the present petition does not suffer from any illegality and no defect can be found regarding the finding recorded by the trial Court and the revisional Court. It was not disputed, at the time of arguments, that the respondent was working as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat and was put under suspension by the Director Panchayat, who had passed an order to that effect. It was published in the newspapers that the respondent had been suspended. It was held in Aroon Purie's case (supra) that where the publication is broadly speaking true in fact and not made to satisfy any personal agenda or vendatta is protected. It was also held therein that the imputation must have been made either with the intention or causing harm or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation would cause harm to a person, who complains of the publication. Crl. Misc. No. M – 36038 of 2009(O&M) -4- As per First Explanation of Section 499 IPC, it is not a defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person if it be for the public good that the imputation should be made or published. Whether or not it is for the public good is a question of fact. A perusal of the news items, which were published in the news paper against the respondent, makes it very much clear that the petitioner himself disclosed to the press reporter that the respondent had been suspended on account of non-fullfiling the government order and misusing of the panchayat funds and not maintaining the work and stock register in time. Whether that news item was got published by the petitioner on account of personal vendatta is a question of fact which could not be decided in this petition. A minute perusal of the complaint itself shows that the offence of defamation is made out from the contents thereof. In order to see any such offence is made out, the complaint is to be read as such without adding anything thereto or substracting any fact therefrom. Whether the case of the petitioner is covered by any of the Explanation to Section 499 IPC is to be seen by the trial Court and as already stated above the same cannot be decided in this petition. There is no ground for quashing of the complaint and the orders mentioned in the petition. The petition is dismissed accordingly. April 5, 2010 (Gurdev Singh) tripti Judge