IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. 65228-M of 2005 (O&M) Date of decision: 4th June, 2010 Jasvir Singh and others … Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Vikas Bahl, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the State. None for respondent No.2. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. Criminal Misc. No.22413 of 2010 in Criminal Misc. No.65228-M of 2005 Application is allowed. Exemption from filing certified copy of judgment (Annexure P-15) is granted. Criminal Misc. No.22412 of 2010 in Criminal Misc. No.65228-M of 2005 Application is allowed. A copy of judgment, dated 24th July, 2009, passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Balachaur annexed therewith as Annexure P-15, is taken on record. Criminal Misc. No.65228-M of 2005 Criminal Misc. No. 65228-M of 2005 (O&M) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on behalf of 23 petitioners praying that complaint titled ‘Bikram Singh v. Jasvir Singh and others’ dated 17th April, 2003 (Annexure P-9) and the summoning order dated 22nd May, 2004 (Annexure P-10) be quashed along with all subsequent proceedings. Respondent No.2 – Bikram Singh had instituted a complaint dated 17.04.2003 (Annexure P-9), in which a grievance was projected that the accused had submitted an application (Annexure P-2) to the Health Minister, Punjab, Chandigarh with an allegation that respondent No.2 – Bikram Singh, being a Punjabi teacher in Government School, was running a clinic and was carrying on medical practice. He, being not qualified, was not entitled to carry-on the practice of medicine and project himself as a doctor. It was further stated that respondent No.2 had pasted stickers of Red Cross on his Maruti car and scooter. In the present petition, it is averred that in pursuance of application (Annexure P-2), in fact a raid was conducted and medicines, detailed in Annexure P-3, were recovered from respondent No.2. Joginder Singh Nambardar – petitioner No.17, signatory to Annexure P-4, along with other persons, had found one patient Kuljit son of Tarsem taking treatment from respondent No.2. It is a case of the petitioners that a case FIR No.26 dated 02.08.2005 was also registered at Police Station Pojewal, District Nawanshahar under Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act and Sections 218, 419, 34 IPC against respondent No.2 – complainant. Quashing of criminal complaint and the summoning order has been sought on the ground that the petitioners cannot be held liable, as it is alleged that neither they had spoken any word nor written anything 2 Criminal Misc. No. 65228-M of 2005 (O&M) to harm the reputation of respondent No.2. Another ground pressed is that the case falls under the first exception to Section 499 IPC and even if the allegations of the complainant are believed, what was stated by the petitioners was nothing but the truth. In support of this, a reliance has been placed upon a judgment (Annexure P-15) to urge that respondent No.2 has been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 419 IPC. It has not been disputed that the judgment (Annexure P-15) is appealable, however, learned counsel has not been able to say emphatically as to whether respondent No.2 has filed any appeal against the judgment (Annexure P-15) or not. Be that as it may, a perusal of the complaint reveals that it has nowhere been stated as to in whose eyes the reputation of complainant – respondent No.2 was lowered. However, in the summoning order dated 22.05.2004 (Annexure P-10), it has been stated as under: “4. In preliminary evidence, Complainant himself stepped into the witness box as CW-1 who reiterated the averments of the Complainant. He also examined CW-2 Satya Devi resident of village Dhannu, CW-3 Parminder Singh resident of Bichhori, CW-4 Bachittar Singh resident of Pachhaur and CW-5 Satya resident of Bhanoo and thereafter closed his preliminary evidence. 5. With the assistance of the Counsel for the Complainant, I have gone through the averments of the Complainant and documents placed on the file by the Complainant. From the preliminary evidence led by the Complainant, it appears that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against Accused No.1 to 27 under Section 500/120-B I.P.C. For want of sufficient evidence on the file against Accused No.28 to 34, Complaint of Complainant is ordered to be dismissed. On filing of PF, Accused No.1 to 27 be summoned for 26.7.2004.” 3 Criminal Misc. No. 65228-M of 2005 (O&M) It will be pertinent to mention here that till any witness states that the acts of the petitioners have lowered the estimation/reputation of the complainant in their eyes or of others, the offence of defamation is not complete. To find this, reference is required to be made to the statements made by the witnesses in their preliminary evidence. The statements of witnesses made during preliminary evidence have been withheld from this Court. Hence, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh petition before this Court, by annexing therewith the statements of witnesses recorded in preliminary evidence. Alternatively, a liberty is also granted to the petitioners to raise all the arguments, which have been raised in the present petition, before the trial Court, along with the argument that the necessary ingredient that the petitioners, directly or indirectly, have lowered the estimation of the complainant – respondent No.2 in the eyes of others regarding his moral or intellectual character, is lacking in the present case. Taking into consideration the long drawn litigation, personal appearance of the petitioners before the trial Court, is exempted, subject to their filing an undertaking that they shall cause their appearance as and when required by the trial Court. They shall also undertake that the evidence, if any, recorded in their absence but in the presence of their counsel, shall be binding upon them. The trial Court may incorporate any other condition in the undertaking to be furnished by the accused. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE June 4, 2010 rps 4