C.R No.6008 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- C.R No.6008 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:- 29.9.2010 Mahavir Singh ... Petitioner Versus Surinder Singh ... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. R.N.Lohan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Gurdev Singh, J (oral) The petitioner/plaintiff has preferred this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 14.5.2009 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Jind, rejecting his plaint in the suit filed by him for the recovery of damages from Surinder Singh – respondent/defendant. The plaintiff filed suit for damages against the defendant on the ground that the defendant got lodged FIR No. 677 dated 18.12.2007, under Sections 167, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC in Police Station City Jind. He was working as Sub Inspector, whereas the defendant was working as conductor in Haryana Roadways. It was in the discharge of his official duties that he checked the buses of Haryana Roadways, including the bus, on which the defendant was the conductor, and during that checking it was found that the defendant had issued the tickets of less value to the passengers and thereby embezzled the money. The matter was reported to the General Manager and on that account the defendant was nursing a grudge against him and the said FIR was the outcome of that grudge. In that FIR the defendant levelled false, concocted and defamatory allegations C.R No.6008 of 2010 (O&M) -2- regarding forgery and making of incorrect statements. The information made in the FIR amounts to defamation for which he is entitled to recover the damages. In the suit, the defendant filed application for rejection of the petition on the ground that the plaint does not disclose the cause of action. The mere registration of the FIR does not give rise to cause of action to file a suit for defamation. That application was contested by the plaintiff, who pleaded in his reply, that the contents of the FIR are false and as such those do amount to levelling of false imputation against him. After hearing the arguments of both the sides the learned trial Court accepted that application and rejected the plaint. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. When the revision was taken up for preliminary hearing, it was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that even making of imputation in the FIR amounts to defamation giving rise to a cause of action for filing the civil suit for damages. He wanted to cite some judgments as precedent in support of his contentions, but has failed to do so. It is well settled that merely lodging of the FIR, though it may contain false imputation, does not amount to defaming the person against whom FIR is lodged. There must be some publication in order to maintain suit for damages. The order passed by the trial Court does not suffer from any illegality and as such the same cannot be interfered while exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. September 29, 2010 (Gurdev Singh) tripti Judge