ATMARAM MAHADEO GAIKWAD Vs. MUKTABAI ATMARAM GAIKWAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mrs. Anita A. Agarwal for the petitioner and Mrs. Jyoti S. Pawar for respondent No. 3, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have been served but have not engaged any Counsel.

(2.) BY means of this revision application, the petitioner (original complainant) impugns the order dated 18-11-91, passed by the Vth Addl. Sessions Judge, Pune, in Criminal Revision Application No. 111 of 1990, whereby the order dated 20-10-89, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pimpri-Chinchwad, issuing process against respondents Nos. 1 and 2 for offence under section 500 I. P. C. , was quashed.

(3.) THE relevant facts may be stated in short. Respondents No. 1 Smt. Muktabai Atmaram Gaikwad and respondent No. 2 Shri Milind Atmaram Gaikwad are wife and son of the petitioner (original complainant) respectively. The allegation in the complaint is that they were asking the petitioner to mutate their names in the property which the petitioner refused. It is alleged that thereafter, they started telling the relations that the petitioner was a lunatic and hence defamed him in the eyes of the relatives and the society. It is further alleged that respondent No. 1 complained at the Pimpri Police Station that the petitioner being a lunatic should be sent to a mental asylum and in pursuance to the said complaint, he was sent. On the aforesaid facts, the Judicial Magistrate was pleased to issue a process under section 500 of I. P. C. against respondent Nos. 1 and 2. As mentioned in para 1, the said respondents challenged the summons through a criminal revision and the summons were quashed and the complaint dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner (original complainant) has approached this Court through the present revision.