BHAGAT SINGH SETHI Vs. ZINDA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference dated 10. 5. 65 made by the Sessions Judge Srinagar with the recommendation that the criminal complaint lodged by the respondent against the petitioners be quashed.

(2.) THE facts that have given rise to this reference are as under. A civil suit for Rs. 19,900 was brought by Sewindra Singh Sethi manager and attorney of Bhagat Singh Sethi and Takht Singh Sethi, proprietors of Messrs Punjab Timber Traders, against the respondent in the court of the District Judge Srinagar on 30. 12. 64. Along with this suit Sewindra Singh put in an application supported by an affidavit for attachment before judgment and issue of a temporary injunction against the respondent. The District Judge was prima facie satisfied with the allegations in the application and the affidavit of S. S. Sethi and thereupon issued an attachment before judgment and a temporary injunction against the respondent. In pursuance of this order of the District Judge attachment was effected. It appears from the record that the defendant respondent did not file any objections against this application and the affidavit of the attorney S. S. Sethi but on 2nd January 1965 he put in an application before the District Judge to the effect that the Nazir of the court did not accept his security but effected attachment which had caused him a great loss. An appeal was preferred against this order of attachment before a Division Bench of this Court and, after undergoing various processes, the order of attachment was upheld. It is stated that the DB ordered that security be furnished by the respondent Zind Lal for the suit amount and costs. Feeling aggrieved with some of the contents of the application for attachment before judgment and temporary injunction the respondent filed a complaint under Section 500 R. P. C. against all the three persons, i. e. , Bhagat Singh and Takht Singh proprietors of Punjab Timber Traders and Sewinder Singh Sethi, the manager and attorney who had actually brought the suit and put in an affidavit for attachment before judgment, on 2. 1. 65. This complaint was accompanied by a certified copy of the application for attachment before judgment and the affidavit sworn by S. S. Sethi in support of that application. The complaint was transferred to the court of the Sub-Registrar Magistrate first class who recorded the statement of the complainant and issued warrants of arrest against all the three accused, fixing 16. 2. 65 as the date in the complaint. Against this order of summoning the accused the petitioners went in revision before the learned Sessions Judge who has made the recommendation as stated above for quashing of the complaint.

(3.) THE learned Sessions Judge has written a very detailed order. Before me also the case was argued by the learned Counsel for the parties. The learned Sessions Judge has remarked that the two accused, Bhagat Singh and Takht Singh reside in Bombay. They have of instituted the suit nor put in the application for attachment before judgment and injunction. The affidavit also is not sworn by either we them. It is only to harass the petitioners and coerce them into a compromise in the civil suit that these two accused have been imp leaded in the complaint. According to the learned Sessions Judge these people cannot by any stretch of imagination be considered to be responsible for the so-called defamation caused to the respondent. It was conceded before me that the suit or the application for attachment before judgment and temporary injunction or, for that matter, the affidavit in support thereof was not subscribed to by these two accused. They are resident of and carry on business in Bombay. But according to the learned Counsel appearing for Zind Lal there is an allegation in para (7) of the complaint that the entire proceedings of instituting the civil suit and obtaining the attachment before judgment and the applications connected therewith have been done by the joint consultation of all the accused and. therefore, these two accused are also responsible for the defamation caused to the respondent.