JAGDISH PARSHAD KARTA Vs. SHARAD KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Jagdish Parshad Karta, the petitioner has brought this petition under the provisions of section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the orders dated 22.09.2011 (Annexure P-5) and 10.07.2012 (Annexure P-6) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana and learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, respectively in order to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice.

(2.) The petitioner had brought a criminal complaint for an offence punishable under sections 500 and 209 IPC against Sharad Kumar Jain, the respondent in the court of Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana on 10.08.2000. In the said complaint, order summoning the accused was made on 31.10.2000. The respondent appeared as accused before the Magistrate on 13.09.2001 and notice of accusation was served upon him on 16.07.2004. Thereafter, the petitioner availed numerous opportunities to lead his evidence and his evidence was over on 17.08.2010 in his statement made in this regard. Statement of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 13.09.2010 and the case was then kept pending for defence evidence. On 17.11.2010 , an application was made by the complainant on the following allegations:-

(3.) The accused had intentionally and deliberately defamed the complainant in the eyes of the public by making totally erroneous and false allegations constituting libel. He had sent copies of the letter containing the false allegations against the complainant. He had photocopied the letter and the top portion of the same was kept blank for filling the name of the addressee, which he had filled in his own hand. (Reference to a photocopy of the letter Ex.C17/A addressed to M/s Gautam Textiles B-IX-1327/1, Bagh Wali Galli, Ludhiana was made). A week earlier to the making of the application, the complainant went to one Amar Nath c/o M/s Bhandari Brothers, Ghas Mandi, Ludhiana and during conversation with him, the said Amar Nath disclosed to the complainant that he had also received one such letter from the accused, which he had sent to the complainant. He found the same to be an original, hand written letter sent by the accused. The complainant has then claimed that he wanted to produce the said original letter in the court, as earlier to that he was not in possession of the same nor had any knowledge that Amar Nath had also received the same. He has claimed that the accused had deliberately denied having sent the said letter. The complainant has claimed that in order to prove the said letter to be in the hand of the accused, he wants to examine a handwriting expert to compare the writing of the accused on the first page of the letter with standard writing and signatures. Production of the original letter and examination of the handwriting expert is claimed to be warranted by law and equity and the said evidence is claimed to be relevant for the just decision of the case.