AMARLAL YADAV Vs. NARMADA YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN brief, factual aspect of the present case is that respondent/complainant Smt. Narmada Yadav is daughter of petitioner/accused. Since Narmada Yadav had left her parents' house and against the wishes of her father married Sohanlal Yadav, therefore, her father (petitioner) called a meeting of about 100 people of the village and before them uttered the words "too Gair Mard Ke sath Bhagi Ladki Hai, Too Shadi Se Pahle Bigad Kar Bhagi thi, Gunde Ki Patni Hai" to which Narmada felt aggrieved and defamed. Being aggrieved, she filed private complaint against Amarlal under Sections 500 and 509, IPC, before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Waraseoni. Evidence of complainant under Sections 200 and 202, Cr. PC was recorded and cognizance of the offence under Sections 500 and 509, IPC was taken. The complaint was registered as Complaint Case No. 411 of 2001. Petitioner filed an application under Section 245 (2), Cr. PC before the Trial Court claiming the charge to be groundless and prayed for discharge. The contention of the petitioner was that since the complainant Narmada Devi had also instituted a civil suit for damages for the alleged defamation and the same was pending, therefore, criminal proceedings ought to have been dropped. Learned Trial Court by order dated 18-10-2001 dismissed the aforesaid application. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order and also aggrieved by the order dated 26-6-2001 whereby the cognizance of the case was taken, petitioner preferred two separate revision petitions before the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, after due consideration of the material on the record, dismissed both the revision petitions by common order dated 20-3-2002. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has come before this Court by filing this petition under Section 482, Cr. PC.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since civil suit for defamation against the petitioner was filed before the Civil Court, the criminal proceedings of the present case on the charge under Sections 500 and 509, IPC were not maintainable and the proceedings should be quashed. It is also submitted that there was no sufficient material on the record to make out case for taking cognizance of the aforesaid offence against the petitioner.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent/complainant has submitted that before the Trial Court the complainant had examined, Saraswati Yadav, Kanta Yadav besides herself under Sections 200 and 202, Cr. PC, from their evidence and from the averments made in the complaint, a prima facie case for taking cognizance against the petitioner for the aforesaid offence is made out. He further submitted that merely by filing the civil suit for damages for defamation, the criminal proceedings will not become redundant. Both the proceedings, civil and criminal operate in different spheres, therefore, it can not be said that the criminal proceedings on the same facts were not maintainable and the charges framed against the petitioner were groundless. Besides that learned Counsel has produced certified copy of the order dated 22-4-2002, passed in C. S. No. 3-B/2002, filed by Smt. Narmada Yadav against Amarlal Yadav whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff Narmada Bai has been dismissed for want of payment of requisite Court-fees.