IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CRMMO Nos.101 of 2009 & 39 of 2010 Date of decision : November 30, 2010 CRMMO No.101 of 2009 Udai Kumar …Petitioner. Versus Dalel Singh and others …Respondents. CRMMO No.39 of 2010 Rajat Sinha …Petitioner. Versus Dalel Singh and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate (in both the petitions). For the Respondents : Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Advocate, for respondent No.1 (in both the petitions). Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. This and another petition, i.e. CRMMO No.39 of 2010, titled as Rajat Sinha versus Dalel Singh and others, are being disposed of by a common order, because relief claimed, in both the petitions, is the same, viz. quashing of proceedings of Criminal Complaint, under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, instituted against the petitioners by respondent Dalel Singh. 3. Respondent Dalel Singh has filed a complaint, under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, against the present petitioners and two more persons, alleging that by Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? …2… publishing a false news item in Amar Ujala, a daily newspaper, they have defamed him. 4. A news item appeared in the daily issue dated 26th May, 2005 of the aforesaid newspaper, which read that a person by the name of Dalel Singh, who lived in the neighbourhood of a lady, by the name of Rupa Devi, had been constantly teasing the said lady and on 20th May, 2005 he forcibly entered the house of the lady to molest her. There is no other person in the locality, mentioned in the news item, by the name of Dalel Singh, except the respondent/complainant, per respondent/complainant Dalel Singh. 5. People started asking respondent/complainant Dalel Singh about the aforesaid news item. Complainant then wrote to the present petitioners and other persons responsible for publishing the aforesaid new item, asking them to clarify in their newspaper that he was not involved in any such activity and that the news item was incorrect. Instead of conceding the request of the complainant, petitioners and other accused published another new item in the issue dated 23rd June, 2005 that they had definite information with them about the earlier news item and that there was no substance in complainant’s communication that he was not involved in any immoral activity. Complainant then filed complaint, under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. …3… 6. Preliminary evidence was adduced by the complainant and the trial Court ordered summoning of the petitioners and other persons, named as accused in the complaint. 7. In the present petitions, it is stated that the news item did not pertain to the complainant, but some other person by the same name, whose father’s name is different from that of complaint’s father. 8. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that there is no other person by the name of Dalel Singh in the ward, which is referred to in the news item and that the name of the other person is in fact Daler Singh and not Dalel Singh. 9. Question whether allegedly defamatory news item was understood by the people to pertain to the complainant or some other person by the same name or by the name of Daler Singh is of fact, which is required to be gone into by the trial Magistrate, during the course of trial. This question may be proved by the petitioners, as their defence, during the course of such trial. Hence, the present petitions are dismissed. Pending application stand disposed of, having become infructuous. Record of the trial Court be returned, with a copy of this order. November 30, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J