Crl. Misc. No.735-MA of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.735-MA of 2009 Date of Decision: 21.07.2011. Balbir Singh ……Appellant. Versus Sushil and others …...Respondents Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. A. P. Bhandari, Advocate for the appellant. L.N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Balbir Singh complainant whose criminal complaint against respondents has been dismissed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Loharu vide impugned judgment dated 29.07.2009 thereby acquitting the respondents, has filed instant application under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for granting leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal. The complainant alleged that accused Nos.1 to 3 had some dispute with complainant’s son. Accordingly, accused Nos.1 to 3 by conniving with accused Nos.4 and 5 made complaints dated 29.11.2002 and 02.12.2002 to the authorities resulting in defamation of the complainant who was posted as VLDA in Animal Husbandry Department. On inquiry, the complaints were found to be false. 1 Crl. Misc. No.735-MA of 2009 Accused No.1 had forged the signatures of other persons on the said application. The complaint was filed for offences under Sections 467, 468, 120-B, 506, 499 and 420 IPC. Respondents were summoned to face trial for offence under Section 500 IPC only. After recording pre charge evidence, charge under Section 500 IPC was framed against the respondents. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Post charge evidence was thereafter recorded. Respondents accused in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence and claimed to be innocent. Davinder Kumar was examined as defence witness. Learned Trial Magistrate vide impugned judgment dated 29.07.2009 acquitted the respondents of the charge against them. Feeling aggrieved, complainant has sought leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the complaints were made by the accused to the authorities and after inquiry, the said complaints were found to be false and it resulted in defamation of the appellant-complainant. I have carefully considered the contention, but the same cannot be accepted. Respondent No.1 is not even signatory to the complaints made against the appellant. According to appellant’s own 2 Crl. Misc. No.735-MA of 2009 version, respondent No.1 had forged the signatures of other persons. However, there is no evidence to this effect nor the respondents were summoned to face trial for offences relating to forgery etc. Averments of the complainant himself depict that the complaints had not been signed by respondent Nos.2 to 5; rather their signatures were forged. Consequently, it cannot be said that the complaints dated 29.11.2002 and 02.12.2002 had been made by the respondents. The complainant also alleged that respondent No.1 had himself written certain words in the complaint, but the complainant appellant failed to prove the said averment. Moreover, on the basis of inquiry report, it cannot be said that the alleged complaints made against the complainant appellant were found to be false. The said complaints were not published anywhere. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no ground for interference with the impugned judgment of acquittal so as to grant leave to the complainant for preferring appeal against the same. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is dismissed in limine. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 21.07.2011. A.kaundal 3