NARESH SACHDEVA Vs. BALRAJ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Respondent-Balraj Singh filed a complaint under Sections 499, 500/34 of the Indian Penal Code against petitioner Naresh Sachdev and three others before the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Siwani (Annexure P-1). The allegations against the petitioner and others are that the petitioner and others used unparliamentary language and wrong words and that the petitioner also said that the respondent was under the influence of liquor. Therefore, the respondent alleged that he was publicly defamed by the accused intentionally.

(2.) THE Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Siwani, after examining the complainant and others held that no case is made out against the petitioner and others under Sections 499, 500 I.P.C. but held that there is a prima facie case against the petitioner and two others under Section 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and ordered them to be summoned for 3.6.1994. The copy of order of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Siwani, dated 29.4.1994 has been produced as annexure P.2. The petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the complaint annexure P-1, the summoning order Annexure P-2 and the further proceedings arising therefrom.

(3.) THE respondent has filed a reply that the petitioner had absented himself from the trial Court since 6.1.1996 and non-bailable warrants have been issued against him and, therefore, the petitioner cannot seek the discretionary relief under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The respondent claims that the Magistrate was empowered to summon the accused for any offence which is made out from the evidence and the mere mentioning of certain offences in the complaint makes no difference. According to the respondent, the order has been passed by the Magistrate after applying his mind and is, therefore, perfectly valid, and the offence under Section 504 I.P.C. is also made out. The respondent claims that the Court at Siwani has jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint, and that the acts of the petitioner and the co-accused are not part of their duty and, therefore, no sanction was necessary from the Government. I have heard the counsel for both the sides.