TARLOK NATH Vs. RAM SARUP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the summoning of the petitioners by the Court in pursuance of a complaint under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called 'the Code') filed by the respondent Ram Sarup has been challenged.

(2.) THE factual position is that on March 6, 1985, the petitioners, namely, Tirlok Nath, Brij Bhushan and Joginderpal lodged a report with the police that the respondent Ram Sarup, along-with Tirlochan Singh, one Tiwari and another person, had come to their mohalla in a car. They were under the influence of liquor. Tirlochan Singh was driving the car. All of them started creating disturbance in the street and then went away threatening the residents of the mohalla to come again. The police did not take any action against the respondent Ram Sarup and his companions presumably because they did not find the report of the petitioners either true or worthy of being pursued. Subsequently, on April 25, 1985, Ram Sarup respondent filed a complaint under section 500 of the Code in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nakodar, alleging that a false report has been lodged by the petitioners against him and his companions which tantamonted to defamation. It was contended in the complaint that Ram Sarup and his companions had never participated in any such occurrence alleged by the petitioners and that soon after the report lodged by the petitioners with the police, the respondent and his companions were medically examined at the Civil Hospital, Nakodar, and it was found that they had not taken liquor. Ram Sarup, respondent, therefore prayed that the petitioner be punished under section 500, Indian Penal Code, for causing harm to their reputation.

(3.) THE order of the Judicial Magistrate, by which the petitioners were summoned to face trial under section 500 of the Code, in pursuance of the complaint filed by Ram Sarup respondent, has been assailed by the petitioners on two grounds. Firstly, that no action for defamation can be taken under section 500 of the Code in respect of a report lodged with the police. Second, that the petitioners' report is covered by Exception Eighth of Section 499 of the Code and as such the Judicial Magistrate committed an error in summoning the petitioners. On hearing, the learned counsel for the parties. I find no merit in either of the two contentions.