Criminal Misc. No. M-26891 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-26891 of 2009 Date of Decision: 23.02.2010 Prem Narang son of Sh. Hem Raj Narang, r/o Barwala, Tehsil and District Hisar. ... Petitioner Versus 1. Lakhmi son of Amar Singh; 2. Nihali wife of Lakhmi; 3. Shamsher Singh; 4. Mahabir; both sons of Lakhmi, residents of village Khedar, Tehsil and District Hisar. 5. Moman s/o Sh. Bhadar, caste Saini, r/o Ward No. 13, near Ram Trading Co. Hisar Road, Barwala, Tehsil and District Hisar. 6. Sube Singh s/o Hari Singh; 7. Malli Devi wife of Sube Singh; 8. Sunil; 9. Subhash; both sons of Sube Singh; 10. Dalbir son of Inder Singh, r/o Ravi Dass Nagar, Daulatpur Road, Barwala, Tehsil and District Hisar, presently residing with Rohtash Mistry son of Sh. Mai Ram, Durga Colony, Near Railway Station, Bhiwani. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Nitin Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Criminal Misc. No. M-26891 of 2009 2 SHAM SUNDER, J. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for setting aside the order dated 10.04.07, rendered by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar (Annexure P2), vide which, it dismissed the complaint, under Sections 499 and 500 IPC, filed by the petitioner, and the judgement dated 13.03.09, rendered by the Court of Sessions Judge, Hisar (Annexure P4), vide which, it dismissed the revision- petition, has been filed by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner, claimed that, he was holding a sizeable chunk of agricultural land, in village Barwala, and was cultivating the same with the assistance of servants and menial labourers. He filed a complaint, on 22.01.07, against the accused, on the allegations, that they used to cultivate his land, as agricultural labourers. They owed a huge amount, in lacs, to the complainant, which they had taken, from him, as advance. In order to grab the said amount, with malafide intention, they started filing false applications, making untrue imputation about character, conduct and behaviour of the complainant, intending to harm his reputation, and to defame him so that no other labourer, may work, in his fields or believe him. It was further stated that, such allegations of character assassination, made against the complainant, by the accused, hurt his reputation. It was further stated that the allegations, levelled by the accused, against the complainant, before the Labour-cum- Conciliation Officer, on 17.07.06, contained the offending words, in Hindi, the english translation whereof is as under:- Criminal Misc. No. M-26891 of 2009 3 “That on 28.06.06, when the petitioners went to the house of the respondent as per undertaking, the respondent instead of giving money told the petitioners as dog, kamine, dhed, chamar etc. filthy words and he also threw them out by giving threat of life; that he has also threatened them to take away the articles from the fields failing which they alongwith their family members would be got killed; that at that time Lakhmi Chand son of Amar Singh, who was with the petitioners was also in the house of the respondent; that the respondent wants to usurp the labour charages of the petitioners which they deposited with the respondent as a trustee and the petitioners are entitled to take the same; that the accounts of last 20/25 years have not been given to the petitioners and they have been given abuses even in the name of the caste in the presence of the society.” It was further stated that, the accused, then appeared, before the District Magistrate and also made false statements, published in Dainik Bhaskar and Dainik Jagran, with their photographs, by making imputations, that the Zamindar, was not paying them their wages, except meals, and that he was not allowing them to leave the farm. It was also alleged therein, that the Zamindar, was asserting, that he would get the daughters and wives of the labourers sold. It was further stated that the accused, filed an application, on 17.07.06, before the SSP, Hisar, as also before the I.G. Police, Hisar, reiterating the allegations. However, the Police, found the allegations, as false, untrue and without any foundation. The petitioner then filed a criminal complaint, which was dismissed vide the aforesaid orders. Criminal Misc. No. M-26891 of 2009 4 3. Preliminary evidence, was produced by the complainant. 4. After hearing the Counsel for the complainant, the trial Court, dismissed the complaint on 10.4.2007, on the ground, that there was no report, that the applications, moved by the accused, were found to be false. It was further held, by the trial Court, that, as per explanation 4, added to Section 499 IPC, such imputation, could not be said to harm the reputation of the complainant. It was further held that, no person, was produced, by the complainant, to prove, that his reputation was lowered down in their estimation. 5. Feeling aggrieved, a revision-petition, was filed, which was dismissed, by the Court of Sessions Judge, Hisar, vide judgement dated 13.03.09. 6. Still feeling dissatisfied, the instant petition, has been filed, by the petitioner. 7. I have heard the Counsel for the petitioner, and, have gone through the documents, on record, carefully. 8. The Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the allegations, levelled by the respondents, in the applications, referred to above, were completely defamatory and sufficient to lower down the reputation of the complainant, in the eyes of the general public, as he carried very good reputation, in the society. He further submitted that the Courts below, without proper application of mind, illegally dismissed the complaint. He further submitted that the orders, being illegal, are liable to be set aside. 9. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the Criminal Misc. No. M-26891 of 2009 5 contentions, raised by the Counsel for the petitioner, in my considered opinion, the petition, is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons, to be recorded, hereinafter. The accused/respondents, were admittedly the labourers, working in the farm of the complainant, who claimed himself to be a big Zamindar. In order to get their salary/wages, due against the petitioner, they moved applications, before the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer. No report, was made, by the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, that the allegations, levelled by the accused/respondents, were in any way false. The report of the Police Officers, that the allegations, in the complaint, were false, was rightly held to be wrong, by the Courts below, on the ground, that instead of adopting the proper course, to get a case registered, under the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, a report was made, that the allegations, were untrue. The Courts below, were right, in holding, that the allegations were not made with an intent to lower down the reputation of the petitioner, in the eyes of the general public and in the eyes of relatives in particular. The courts were also right in holding that no witness was examined by the complainant, who could say that his complainant's reputation was lowered down in the eyes of the general public or in estimation of friends or relatives. According to Explanation 4, added to Section 499 IPC, no imputation, is said to harm a person's reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person, in respect of his case Criminal Misc. No. M-26891 of 2009 6 or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful. The Courts below, were, thus, right in holding, that since the allegations, levelled were not found to be defamatory, no ground, whatsoever, was made out for proceeding, against the accused, under Section 500 IPC. The orders passed by the Courts below, do not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Court. The same are liable to be upheld. 10. For the reasons recorded above, Criminal Misc. No. M- 26891 of 2009, is dismissed. 11. Registry is directed, to comply with the order, by sending the copies thereof, to the Courts concerned. 23.02.2010 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE