KRISHAN LAL AHUJA Vs. HARBANS LAL KHATTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision filed by Krishan Lal Ahuja against the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar dated 25.3.1998 whereby respondent was discharged in complaint titled "Krishan Lal Ahuja v. Harbans Lal Khattar, Editor Publisher, Printer and Proprietor of Daily "Sandhya Khattar Vani", Chameli Market, Rohtak" of offence alleged to have been committed by him under section 500 Indian Penal Code injuring his reputation and bringing him low in the estimation of friends, relations, etc. Facts :-

(2.) KRISHAN Lal Ahuja instituted complaint under Section 500 Indian Penal Code on 22.2.1992 against Harbans Lal Khattar alleging that he is lecturer in Mathematics at Govt. College, Adampur. He enjoys good reputation amongst the society. He owns residential house No. 78/8 situated in Shivaji Colony, Rohtak where his parents reside. He had lent Rs. 20,000/- to his brother Khairati Lal in the year 1987-88 by means of cheques with a view to enable him to start business in the name and style "Jagdamba Paints and Hardware Store". He promised to repay the amount within 2 years. On 24.9.1991, he visited the said house with a view to realise the amount which he had failed to repay. His brother Jagdish assaulted him with the active connivance of one Surender. He lodged complaint with PS Gandhi Camp, Rohtak with regard to that incident. On 24.2.1991, Harbans Lal Khattar, Editor, Publisher, Printer and Proprietor of a daily evening newspaper called "Sandhya Khattar Vani", Rohtak published the news item with the headline "Gandhi Nagar mei kalyugi puttar dwara maan-baap ki pitaee". According to him this publication was made by Harbans Lal Khattar in the said newspaper with intent to defame him and lower him in the esteem of those who were holding him in esteem. After recording preliminary evidence, the Magistrate found that there were sufficient grounds to proceed against Harbans Lal Khattar under section 500 Indian Penal Code. He accordingly summoned him for trial thereunder.

(3.) ON revision, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar vide order dated 25.3.1998 found that the Magistrate should not have ordered the framing of charge. Additional Sessions Judge accordingly accepted the revision and discharged him.