IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CRMMO No.100 of 2009 Date of decision : November 22, 2010 Baldev Chand …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. T.S Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 Dinesh Chander Sharma in person. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Present revision petition is directed against the order dated 20th May, 2009, of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Una, whereby though the revision petition, filed by the petitioner, challenging the order of his summoning as an accused, in a complaint case, under Sections 504 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code has been accepted, at the same time observations have been made and views expressed only with respect to offence, under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code and nothing has been said or observed about the other offence. 2. Respondent filed a complaint, under Sections 504 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, against the present petitioner, alleging that when on 9th April, 2000, he was Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… narrating to some of his colleagues, an earlier incident of the day, in which he had been manhandled by the petitioner and two-three other persons, the petitioner, who was then working a Personal Assistant to Deputy Commissioner came there and enquired of his colleague, namely Shri Kharag Singh, about the President of Bar Association and when one of his other colleagues, namely Shri Sunil Verma, questioned him about the earlier incident, he said that the respondent had called names to the Deputy Commissioner. These remarks of the petitioner, according to the respondent- complainant, were made with an intent to provoke him to cause breach of public peace and also to defame him. 3. Respondent examined himself and some other witnesses, in support of his allegations, before the Judicial Magistrate. Judicial Magistrate passed an order, under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, summoning the petitioner, to answer to charge, under Sections 500 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner challenged the order, by filing revision petition, in the Sessions Court. Matter came to be heard and decided by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), who passed the impugned order. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also the respondent, who is present in person, and gone through the record. 5. Additional Sessions Judge has dismissed the complaint filed by the respondent, vide impugned order. According to the petitioner dismissal of complaint is confined …3… only to the offence, under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. It is true that in the order there is no reference to the alleged offence, under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code, but the fact remains that the complaint, as a whole, has been dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge and, therefore, there was hardly any need for the petitioner to have come to this Court, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. Respondent Dinesh Chander Sharma, who is present in person, argues that this Court, in exercise of its suo-moto revisional powers, can pass an order, setting aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, even with respect to offence, under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. It is true that this Court, in exercise of its suo-moto revisional powers, both under the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 227 of the Constitution of India, can pass any order for doing justice, but here from a bare reading of the complaint, it is clear that the respondent has been trying to abuse the process of Court. It is stated in the complaint that the petitioner did not make any defamatory utterance against the respondent on his own. Respondent was present with his colleagues and discussing an incident that had taken place earlier in the day, when the petitioner went there and enquired about the President of the Bar Association. One of the colleagues of the respondent, namely Shri Sunil Verma, who was present there, asked the petitioner about the earlier incident and it was then that the petitioner told him that the …4… respondent had used foul language against the Deputy Commissioner. These facts themselves are enough to hold that the petitioner did not have the intention to defame the respondent or to provoke him to cause breach of peace. 7. For the foregoing reasons, present revision petition is allowed and it is clarified that the order of dismissal of the complaint, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) is to be treated as an order of dismissal of the complaint, with respect to both the alleged offences. Petition stands disposed of. November 22, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J