SARWAN SINGH Vs. SURJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of CRM M 45161 of 2007 & CRR 2798 of 2009 as these have emerged out of single order dated 30.04.2003, passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Garhshanker, whereby accused Nos. 1 to 3, 9 and 13, in complaint case No. 16 dated 22.07.2002, have been summoned to face proceedings under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code and remaining accused Nos. 4 to 8 and 10 to 12, have not been summoned.

(2.) THE facts are being taken from CRM M 45161 of 2007. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that FIR No. 132 under Sections 379, 447, 506, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code was lodged in the year 1996 by one Sarwan Singh (since deceased) against the respondents and others, and in the said case, the persons arraigned as accused were acquitted on 15.12.2001 by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Garhshankar vide judgment Annexure P2. The petitioners were examined as witnesses in the criminal case lodged by Sarwan Singh. After passing of the judgment of acquittal, the respondents on 22.07.2002 filed a criminal complaint under Section 500 IPC for proceeding against 13 persons including the petitioners before this Court. The Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Garhshanker, after recording evidence in preliminary inquiry, summoned the petitioners to face proceedings for commission of offence under Section 500 IPC vide order dated 30.04.2003 (Annexure P3). Counsel for the petitioners has primarily claimed quashing of complaint dated 20.07.2002 (Annexure P1) and proceedings emanating therefrom on the ground that the criminal proceedings are barred under section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, 'the Code'). It is argued that the criminal complaint for offence of defamation could be filed by the respondents within a period of three years from the date of lodging of FIR in the year 1996 and not within a period of three years from the date of judgment passed in those proceedings recording acquittal of respondents to bring it within limitation under the Code. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in Surinder Mohan Vikal v. Ascharaj Lal Chopra, 1978 AIR(SC) 986. He has also cited a judgment of this Court in Ram Murti and another v. Madan Gopal, 2006 2 RCR(Cri) 346, judgment of the Delhi High Court in Ms. Romy Khanna v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) New Delhi and others, 2011 4 RCR(Cri) 735and judgment of the Madras High Court in P.M. Kathiresan v. Shanmugham, Retired Captain (Madras), 1995 3 RCR(Cri) 369.

(3.) ANOTHER submission made by counsel is that even if the accused (respondents) have been acquitted of the offence in a criminal case, no offence of defamation is made out against the persons, who lodged the complaint and the prosecution witnesses merely because the Magistrate did not find the accused guilty. To substantiate his contention, it is argued that the action of the complainant and the witnesses would be covered by exception Eighth to section 499 IPC. In this regard, he has relied upon judgments of this Court in Darshan Singh v. Avtar Singh, 2002 1 RCR(Cri) 521, Ravinder Kumar v. Wazird Chand, 1992 1 RCR(Cri) 92and Shalini Mehta alias Shalu v. Dr. J L Mehta, 1993 3 RCR(Cri) 589.