IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.412 of 2003. Date of Decision: 12th May, 2010. ____________________________________________________ Gita Ram Sharma ….Appellant. Versus Smt. Indu Sood and others ……..Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? For the appellant : Mr. Harish Dod, Advocate, vice Mr. Peeyush Verma, Advocate. For the respondents No.1 and 2 : Mr. Alok Ranjan, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH, J. (Oral) : In Criminal Case No.24/2 of 1999, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondents vide its detailed order dated 26th September, 2002 for the offences punishable under Sections 499, 500 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard and gone through the record. 3. In short, the facts giving rise to the present case can be stated thus. On the fax massage, which is purported to have been sent by respondent No.2 Virender Sood to the then Director General of Police, Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - local police initiated the enquiry against the appellant herein, on the basis of the statements of Vinay Dutt respondent and Abdul Rashid, Head Constable Chet Ram presented a Kalandra under Sections 105, 150 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rohru. After his subjective satisfaction he issued notices under Section 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against appellant Geeta Ram and one Krishan Chand. These proceedings were challenged by filing revision petition before the Court of Sessions. Vide order dated 1st October, 1999 (Ext.P.4) the proceedings before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rohru were ordered to be dropped. Thereafter the appellant filed criminal complaint to prosecute the respondents for defamation under the Sections aforesaid. 4. There is nothing on record to show that the fax massage in question was sent by respondent Virender Sood, which ultimately culminated into the proceedings under Sections 107, 150 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There is also no statement of Shri Virender Sood with respect to the fax-massage having been sent by him to the then Director General of Police. The police was duty bound to enquire into the - 3 - matter as the fax-massage was marked for enquiry by the then Director General of Police. During the enquiry the complainant was neither arrested nor criminally prosecuted. If the police officials had enquired from various persons about his residence etc. that is of no consequence nor by this act of the police the complainant can be said to have been defamed particularly by the respondents. Therefore, warp and woof of the offence charged is not met, hence the acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court calls for no interference, as such the appeal is dismissed. 5. The respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by them at any stage during the proceedings of this case. 6. Send down the record forthwith. May 12, 2010. (Surinder Singh), J. (rc)