CHANDRAJIT SINGH Vs. SURENDRA NARAYAN GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order passed by Ilnd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore, in Criminal Case No. 1981/2005 on dated 28.10.2005 for taking cognizance of the offence punishable under section 500 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and directed issuance of a bailable warrant of Rs. 2,000/ - against the present petitioner has been called in question by way of this petition filed under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code and prayer has been made for quashment of the proceedings of the criminal case.

(2.) SHORT facts of the case are that respondent is the husband of Late Smt. Saroj Gupta who was earlier working on the post of Principal in Madhav College, Ujjain. During that period she filed a criminal complaint under section 120 -B, 192 and 500 of Indian Penal Code against the present petitioner and cognizance was taken in thai complaint by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ujjain. That order was challenged by the present petitioner in the Court of Sessions Judge, Ujjain who allowed that revision and petitioner was discharged. The petitioner was also working as Vice Chancellor, Devi Ahilya Vishwa Vidyalaya, Indore, at the relevant time. It is alleged that during meeting of Executive Council of University on 27.1.2005, present petitioner uttered some obscene words with intent to defame deceased Saroj Gupta, it is also alleged that she had already died much prior to this incident. The meeting was attended by one Smt. Meera Chouradiya who wrote a letter to the present petitioner and the letter was published in daily newspaper. It is alleged in the complaint that after the publication of the letter respondent/ complainant came to know regarding the incident and felt hurt because of the conduct of the present petitioner, who unnecessarily used abusive language towards a lady who already died and this imputation levelled by the present petiioner was intended to harm the reputation and character of deceased Saroj Gupta and amounts defamation as per the provisions of section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the complaint was tiled in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore, who after recording the statement of respondent took cognizance of the offence and issued process against the present petitioner.

(3.) THIS portion of the statement cleary shows that the statement given by this witness even under section 200 of Criminal Procedure Code, is not admissible in evidence being only hearsay evidence and, therefore, is not evidence. The best person in this behalf could be any of them who attended the meeting of the Executive Council, but none of them was examined by the respondent before trial Court under section 202 of Criminal Procedure Code.