SURINDER SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. JAGMOHANLAL SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Surinder Singh and 11 others petitioners have filed this petition under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaint, dated 23-11-1991 Annexure P/1, summoning order passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Nabha, Annexure P/2 and further proceedings pending in the trial Court arising out of the complaint. The brief facts of the case necessary for the disposal of this petition are that Jagmohan Lal Sharma respondent filed a complaint against the petitioners for offences under Sections 499, 500, 120-B Penal Code alleging that he was respectable person who commanded good respect in his village Duladi at Nabha. His father was a retired Deputy Superintendent of Police and he was a landlord. He served in various capacities and retired as Superintendent Grade II on attaining the age of superannuation from the office of Director, Water Resources, Directorate, Punjab Chandigarh. He rendered blotless service, without any single punishment throughout his service career. The petitioners hatched a criminal conspiracy against him and his son as they were in the habit of blackmailing innocent persons and moved a written complaint dated 17-5-1991 to the Director, Water Resources Directorate Punjab, Chandigarh and forwarded the copies thereof to Ramesh Chander, Superintendent S.Y.L. Tara Chand Stenographer and others. In the application they made defamatory accusations against his character and honesty. They further alleged that he was having doubtful relations with one female employee of his department and she often visited his home and stayed there even at night. Similarly his son Sanjiv Sharma, an ad hoc clerk was also frequently seen in Rose Garden with another female employee, even during office hours. These imputations levelled by the petitioner against him and his son were defamatory, baseless and false to the knowledge of the petitioners and were levelled just to humiliate him, to tarnish his image and to malign and defame him and his son. He was lowered in the estimation of his relatives, respectables, parents and colleagues.

(2.) After preliminary evidence was recorded which consisted of the statement of the complainant and 13 other witnesses the learned trial Court found that a prima facie case was made out against the petitioners and they were, thus, summoned to face trial for the offences mentioned above.

(3.) The petitioners contended that the respondent who worked in the office of Director, Water Resources for a very long time became despotic and created terror for their. He coerced Piar Kaur petitioner who was a class IV Government employee and made he r work at his house. They made a representation against the behaviour of the respondent feeling aggrieved by his illegal acts and the representation was addressed to the Director Water Resources Directorate, Chandigarh Copies of the same were not sent to any person. The representation was simply made so that a departmental enquiry may be ordered against the respondent. The respondent was residing m Chandigarh for the last 25 years and there was no question of defaming him in his native village.