SUKHBIR SINGH BADAL Vs. RAJINDER PAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition has been filed under Sec. 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') for quashing the complaint bearing CIS No. NACT-692-2017 IPC under Sec. 499 read with Ss. 500, 501, 502 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC'), dtd. 31/1/2017, Annexure P-1, as well as summoning order dtd. 4/3/2020, Annexure P-2, passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh, along with all subsequent proceedings.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are, the respondent filed the aforementioned complaint under Sec. 190 Cr.P.C. in individual capacity, alleging commission of offence of criminal defamation against the petitioner/accused under Sec. 499 read with Ss. 500, 501 and 502 IPC. The respondent/complainant has claimed himself to be a respectable citizen of India as resident of SAS Nagar, Mohali. Being a baptised Sikh belonging to a Gursikh family, he earns his living by doing business, and serves the Sikh community through a religious organisation, namely, Akhand Kirtani Jatha (hereinafter referred to as 'AKJ'). This is a world known organisation consisting of baptised Sikhs and has its set-up throughout the world. He also claims to be chief spokesperson of the AKJ for the last ten years on account of his honesty, unshakeable integrity and religious devotion. He alleged that there had been malicious conspiracies on behalf of various agencies to malign his reputation at different points of time, but given his high reputation in the Sikh religion, nobody could harm his stature. AKJ had been criticizing the government of Punjab for its failure to prevent the desecration of Shri Guru Granth Sahib, and identify the culprits behind it. On this account, the petitioner, who was Deputy Chief Minister, had been keeping grudge against him.

(3.) In this factual background, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner contends that under Sec. 199 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate can only take cognizance of an offence upon receiving a complaint by a person who is aggrieved, and as per Explanation 2 to Sec. 499 IPC, an imputation amounts to defamation if it concerns a company, or an association, or a collection of persons as such. Such collection of persons must be identifiable body so that it can be said that a group of particular persons, as distinguished from rest of the community, stands defamed. If identity of the collection of persons is not established so as to be relatable to the defamatory words, the complaint will not be maintainable. The complainant claims to be belonging to an organisation, AKJ. It is not known as to what is the form of this organisation, its constitution, members, and whether it is registered or not. Therefore, AKJ cannot be termed a determinate group which can be called 'collection of persons', and the congnizance could not have been taken. In support of his contention, he has relied upon law laid down by the Supreme Court in Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, Ministry of Law and others, (2016) 7 SCC 221.