MOHD. ARSHAD KHAN Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge by which the appellant's substantive writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing of Criminal Case No.833/2006 between Shri Prakash Choubey v. Mohd. Arshad Khan pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, including the order framing charge for offence punishable under Section 501 of the IPC, has been dismissed finding no merit.

(2.) Respondent No.5 herein filed a writ petition seeking quashment of the order framing charge for offence under Section 501 of the IPC against the appellant herein before the jurisdictional criminal court by which the criminal court has taken cognizance of the commission of offence punishable under Section 501 of the IPC stating that the appellant herein has filed W.P.No.3333/2003 before this Court against respondent No.6 and made a defamatory statement in para 6 of the said writ petition that criminal case for offence punishable under Section 395 of the IPC is pending against him which is absolutely false and which is defamatory and on the said writ petition being filed and notice having been issued to him, respondent No.6 has suffered damage of his reputation among the public at large, therefore, the appellant is liable to be punished. The learned Single Judge after considering the submissions of the parties came to the conclusion that from the allegations of the complaint, prima facie, ingredients for framing charge under Section 501 of the IPC are made out and held that the defence which has been taken by the appellant herein in the said writ petition can be taken conveniently at the time of trial and in such a situation, the said defence can be considered during the course of trial.

(3.) Mr. V.G. Tamaskar, learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner, would submit that the learned Single Judge has fallen under a grave error by holding that prima facie case for charging offence under Section 501 of the IPC is made out. The writ petition filed is still pending consideration before this Court and in the said writ petition in the description of respondent No.7 it has only been mentioned that this Court can summon the record including the record of sessions trial pending since 1987 against respondent No.10. The case of the complainant is covered against him under clauses (1) and (7) of paragraph 102 of the decision rendered by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 as immediately after receipt of notice of W.P.No.3333/2003, the complaint was lodged as a counter-blast and even otherwise, no offence under Section 501 of the IPC is made out being covered by the Ninth Exception to Section 499 of the IPC.