1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 23317-M of 2009 Date of Decision: 24.8.2009 *** Ram Parshotam Sharma .. Petitioner Vs. Chander Parkash Saini & Ors. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The complaint of the petitioner seeking summoning of respondents for an offence under Section 500,34 IPC has been dismissed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal vide order dated 28.11.2007. Likewise, his revision preferred against the said order has meted with the same fate by dint of order dated 17.3.2009 passed by the revisional Court below. By way of instant petition, both the orders have been impugned in the instant petition. Respondent No.1 is stated to be immediate neighbour of the petitioner with whom he admittedly is having strained relations while respondents No.2 and 3 are the persons relating to publishing of a newspaper. Claiming that a news item dated 17.1.2007 published by respondents No.2 and 3 in their newspaper in connivance with respondent No.1 has lowered down his reputation in the society, the petitioner filed the complaint. In preliminary evidence besides examining himself, he got examined Anil Kumar as CW2 and Sushil Kumar as CW3 and also placed on record the documentary evidence. Finding the averments and evidence produced in respect thereof short of attracting the provisions of Section 500 IPC, both the Courts below, as said above, dismissed the complaint. Learned counsel for the petitioner heard and paper book 2 perused. The impugned orders reveal that both the Courts below held that the news item was not defamatory, harming the reputation of the complainant amongst the society, so as to attract the provisions of Section 500 IPC. Even the own witnesses of the complainant speak out that they disbelieved the news item and denounced the same. Even it was shown by the complainant that the alleged news item was got published by respondents No.2 and 3 deliberately to defame the reputation of the petitioner or with the knowledge that news item was false or that respondents No.2 and 3 acted malafidely while making the publication of the said news item. The Courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence and circumstances of the case and finding the essential ingredients of Section 500 IPC conspicuously missing, rightly dismissed the complaint of the petitioner. There is no illegality or perversity in the approach adopted by the Courts below. The petition is accordingly dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE August 24,2009 Jiten