SUDESH VIJ Vs. ARUN SHARMA @ PAPPU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who has been summoned for an offence under Section 500 I.P.C. on a complaint filed by respondent No. 1, has filed this petition for quashing of the complaint as well as of the summoning order.

(2.) THE petitioner, claiming himself to be a youth congress leader and Vice President of Punjab Pradesh Youth Congress, has impugned the order summoning him to face proceedings for having defamed respondent No. 1. The petitioner has raised the grievance that the complaint would not reveal any allegation of defamation and, thus, he is wrongly summoned, ignoring the well-settled and understood principle in this regard. He is further aggrieved against the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, dismissing his revision petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant has only made allegation of false statement and had not placed any evidence on record to show that publication of the news resulted in his defamation or lowering reputation in the eyes of public to attract the provisions of Section 500 IPC. In this regard, the counsel has referred to the averments in the complaint. Counsel for the petitioner then submits that his case would be covered by Explanation 4 to Section 499, which provides that no imputation is said to harm a person's reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as graceful. Reliance is also placed on Ninth Exception of Section 499 IPC to plead that no offence would be made out against him for which he could have been summoned by the Magistrate. This exception provides that it is not defamation to make any imputation on the character of another, provided that the imputation be made in good faith for the protection of the interest of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good. It is, thus, seen that the petitioner basically has attacked the summoning order on the ground that respondent No. 1 did not lead evidence to prove the press report and the fact that this press report even if true had defamed the said respondent.