RAMESH VINAYAK Vs. GURPREET SINGH AHLUWALIA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in this petition is for quashing of criminal complaint No.206400 of 2015 filed under Sections 499 and 500 of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and the summoning order dated 23.08.2016 (Annexure P4) as well as the order dated 18.10.2016 (Annexure P7) vide which the criminal complaint was restored by the trial Court on payment of costs of Rs.2,000.00.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant Gurpreet Singh Ahluwalia filed a criminal complaint under Sections 499 and 500 Penal Code against the petitioner who is arrayed as accused No.6 along with other accused Nos.1 to 5 in the complaint. The case of the complainant is that, on 10.08.2015, a news item has been published in the local newspaper by the Editor of Hindustan Times and Dainik Bhaskar that when the Punjab Police came to know about arrest of the complainant by Chandigarh Police on the allegation that the complainant and his brother has tried to kidnap and threatened one Gursharan Singh, the Punjab Police took the complainant to Batala on production warrant as he was wanted in a case at Punjab. It is also published in the newspaper that a case of cheating was registered against the complainant at Batala. The complainant further stated that the news item published in Dainik Bhaskar newspaper was false and has lowered the reputation of the complainant and it was done on account of business rivalry as a news channel is run by the father of the complainant. It is further stated that in fact no case has been registered against the complainant in Batala nor he was taken by the Punjab Police as alleged in the newspaper. The complainant further stated that he is an Advocate and when his colleagues (as named in the complaint) enquired about his arrest, it had lowered the reputation of the complainant at his workplace and he has also faced lot of social embarrassment. It was also stated that a false news regarding the arrest of the complainant was also aired on a television channel i.e. Living India by its Anchor Roopak Sharma.

(3.) The complainant in the preliminary evidence examined himself as CW1 and produced on record the documents Exs.C1 to C4 including the news item published in Hindustan Times and Dainik Bhaskar as well as the C.D. which was aired on the news channel. CW2 Karamjeet Singh, stated that he has read the aforesaid news item which relate to his colleague/complainant and when he enquired the matter from the near and dear ones, the image and respect of the complainant was lowered in his eyes. Similar statement was made by CW3 Gurmatpal Singh and CW4 Mohit Kaushal.