Crl.Rev.No. 2980 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Rev.No. 2980 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 3.8.2011 Garib Singh ......Petitioner Versus Raghuwinder Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.G.S.Nahel, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. Petitioner had filed a complaint against the respondents qua offence punishable under Sections 500/ 501 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short), 1860. Vide order dated 16.8.2008 (Annexure P- 2), trial Court summoned the accused to face the trial under Section 500 IPC. Aggrieved by the said order, respondents preferred a revision petition and vide the impugned order dated 12.8.2009, the same was allowed and the order, whereby the respondents were summoned to face the trial under Section 500 IPC, was set aside. Hence, the present petition by the complainant-petitioner. Crl.Rev.No. 2980 of 2009 (O&M) 2 The case of the complainant, in brief, was that he was working as a President of Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Limited, Katron from the year 1994 to 1999. The complainant had remained sarpanch of gram panchaya, village Ram Nagar Chhanna from the year 1998 to 2003 and till date he was a member of the gram panchayat of village Ram Nagar Chhanna. The complainant also remained Director of Marketing Society Dhuri for five years and Director of Market Committee, Sherpur for three years. The complainant was working as a Chairman of P.S.W.C committee of the school. The complainant had very good reputation and respect in District Sangrur. In order to defame and harass the complainant, respondents lodged a false complaint against him qua misappropriation of funds of the Cooperative Society to the tune of ` 25,00,000/- during the year 1995. The said complaint was duly inquired into and the allegations levelled therein were found to be false. Due to the complaint moved by the respondents, the reputation of the complainant had been adversely affected. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 8th exception of Section 499 IPC reads as under:- Accusation preferred in good faith to authorised person: “It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject- Crl.Rev.No. 2980 of 2009 (O&M) 3 matter of accusation.” The petitioner was working as a President of katron Society. The respondents moved a complaint against the petitioner qua embezzlement of the funds of the society. Admittedly, no publication was made by the respondents qua the said fact nor any pamphlets were distributed by them. The enquiry was made qua the complaint submitted by the respondents and the allegations were found to be false. As per exception No.8 to Section 499 IPC, an accusation made against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person in good faith cannot be said to be defamation. The complaint was moved by the respondents to Minister, Cooperative Society, who had marked the same to Joint Registrar. Merely because the complaint had been found to be false, it cannot be presumed that it was moved with an intention to defame the petitioner. In these circumstances, the impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 03, 2011 anita