S P SATSANGI Vs. KRISHNA KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the summoning orders passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate on 5.2.2000. These summoning orders are passed in the complaint filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant'). Complainant is the wife of the petitioner. Petitioner and the complainant were married on 23.1.1983. They lived together for few years and three female children, namely, Kanika (aged 16 years), Anupama Satsangi (aged 15 years) and Vasundha Satsangi (aged 10 years), were born out of this wedlock. It seems that the parties could not and did not live together peacefully. Sometime in the year 1994, the petitioner herein was separated from the complainant. Thereafter, on 27.11.1997, the petitioner filed a petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(l)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In this petition, in order to prove the cruelty, the petitioner also filed, as Annexure-A, i.e. tape-recorded conversation. It is alleged that this annexure contains reproduction of the conversation between the petitioner and the complainant which was recorded by the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that this conversation would amply demonstrate that the complainant was treating the petitioner with cruelty.

(2.) It maybe mentioned that the complainant has vehemently denied the alleged telephonic conversation as contained in the said Annexure-A. However, on the basis of some of the utterances on the part of the petitioner in the said conversation, the complainant has filed complaints against the petitioner under Sections 499 & 500 of the Indian Penal Code alleging that the said utterances were defamatory in nature. To say it precisely, the complainant is feeling offended by the following imputation, which Was uttered by the petitioner, in the purported tape-recorded conversation. He had said "Randi, Kotha koon chala raha hai" (English translation - 'You prostitute, who is running the brothel').

(3.) The complainant has stated that she is a doctor by profession and is a reputed gynaecologist. The aforesaid imputation against her made by the petitioner is extremely derogatory to her image and reputation. It is for this reason that the complainant submits that the petitioner be punished for committing offence of defamation in accordance with law. As aforesaid, summoning orders have been passed in this complaint.