SANJAY KUMAR CHOUDHARY Vs. RAJENDRA AGRICULTURAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioners Smt. Jagjit Kaur and her father Balwant Singh under the provisions of Sec. 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the order dated 7.4.1995 passed by the learned A.C.J.M., Danapur in Complaint Case No. 43(C)/95 by virtue, of which on the complaint so made by opposite party No. 2 Lt. Col. Harjit Singh, cognizance of the offence is taken under Sections, 500 and 501, I.P.C. against the present petitioners.

(2.) IT transpires that by order dated 1.3.1996, this Court was pleaded to stay the further proceedings and the matter being admitted is listed today for hearing.

(3.) HEARD Shri Rajendra Kumar Giri, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Shri Chittaranjan Sinha, learned Counsel representing O.P. No. 2. The State is being represented by Shri K.V. Narayan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor who is also heard. On behalf of the petitioners, it is pointed out that cognizance of the offence taken under Secs. 500/501, I.P.C. is bad in law because taking the worse view, the petitioners come under the exceptions 8 and 10 of Section 499 of the I.P.C.. In this context, reference is made to Annexure -3 and it is submitted that the matter was simply reported to the higher authority with regard to the conduct of O.P. No. 2 who was having his relation with Miss Lemla Long Khimer @ Shashi Lemla. It is pointed out that petitioner No. 1 Jagjit Kaur being not legally divorced, O.P. No. 2 was having such connection and it is just for the protection of her interest that Jagjit Kaur in writing made a complaint to the higher Army Officer against O.P. No. 2 and by the plain Reading of Exceptions 8 and 10 of Sec. 499, I.P.C, it will transpire that such protest was, made exposing the Activities of O.P. No. 2 cannot be said coming under the purview of defamation and in that light the impugned order requires interference and the prayer so made for quashing the whole proceedings be thus considered favourably in the light of the inherent powers so contained under Sec. 482, Cr.P.C. by which this Court can very well interfere with the order of cognizance. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has also referred to Annexures -5, 6, 6 -A, 9 and 12 of the rejoinder petition so filed. It is submitted that by looking into those Annexures, it will transpire that the said Manipuri lady, named above, was very much staying with O.P. No. 2 and because of this illicit connection, O.P. No. 2 was blessed with two daughters and in the voters list, the name of the lady is shown as the wife of O.P. No. 2 whereas the two issues from the Manipuri lady continuing their studies, the name of O.P. No. 2 finds place as the father. In support of his contention that the impugned order requires interference and the powers under Sec. 482, Cr.P.C. in such circumstances, can well be invoked, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, has relied upon a case reported in - - , Ramesh Roy V/s. The King and it is pointed out that when protection under Sec. 499 exception of is so sought for the accused need not prove the allegations to be true. It is enough to show that he had reasonable grounds to believe in allegations. On behalf of the petitioners, a reference has also been made to the provisions of Sec. 182 of the Cr.P.C and it is pointed out that the learned Court below taking cognizance rather had no jurisdiction as to take the cognizance because the letter being addressed to the superior Army Officer was sent from Delhi and the same was so received even at Delhi itself. All other grounds so good grounds for interference with the impugned orders are pressed into service. Lastly, it is submitted that it is all in good faith that such letter by way of protest was so addressed to the superior Army Officer for the petitioners own interest and for simply keeping a check upon the conduct of O.P. No. 2 and had no malice in any way to malign him or his character by sending such protest letter which was in no way defamatory or can no account be said to be putting any imputation. The other sides lawyer, on the other hand, has submitted that by the plain reading of the contents of Annexure -3 which is on the record, it will transpire that petitioner No. 1 Smt. Jagjit Kaur, as a matter of fact, wanted to harm the moral and intellectual character of O.P. No. 2 and there was sufficient prima facie material before the learned Court below of defamatory imputation made by her against O.P. No. 2. and, thus, the learned Court below was perfectly justified in taking cognizance of the offence finding prima fade material which, thus, does not warrant any interference. It is also pointed out that the contents of the impugned order can in no account be said to be abuse of the process of the Court of while entertaining application filed under Sec. 482, Cr.P.C., the Court has to exercise such inherent powers sparingly and as far as the present case is concerned, the petitioner has failed to make out any case for interference. On behalf of O.P. No. 2 reported cases have been referred in support of his contention that under Sec. 482, Cr.P.C. sparingly such power can be exercised after due consideration. Those reported cases are - - , State of Bihar V/s. Murad Ali Khan and Ors. particularly para 6 of the reported case was referred. Another reported case so relied upon is - - , Municipal Corporation of Delhi V/s. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and Ors.