Dipika Lal vs V.K. Gupta
2008 Latest Caselaw 1135 Del

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                Reserved on      : April 25, 2008
                                Date of Decision : July 25, 2008

                                CRL.M.C. 265 of 2001
       DIPIKA LAL & ANR.                               ..... PETITIONERS
                                Through Mr. S.D. Salwan with Mr.Neeraj
                                Chaudhary, Advocate

                       versus

       VIPIN KUMAR GUPTA & ANR                    ..... RESPONDENTS
                        Through Respondent No.1 in person.


                                CRL.M.C. 264 of 2001

       DIPIKA LAL & ANR.                               ..... PETITIONERS
                                Through Mr. S.D. Salwan with Mr.Neeraj
                                Chaudhary, Advocate

                       versus

       VIPIN KUMAR GUPTA & ANR                    ..... RESPONDENTS
                        Through Respondent No.1 in person.


                                CRL.M.C. 529 of 2001


       DIPIKA LAL & ANR.                                  .... PETITIONERS
                                Through Mr. S.D. Salwan with Mr.Neeraj
                                Chaudhary, Advocate

                       versus


       STATE & ANR                                    ..... RESPONDENTS
                                Through Respondent No.1 in person.

                                CRL.M.C. 1890 of 2001

       DIPIKA LAL & ANR.                                ..... PETITIONERS
                                Through Mr. S.D. Salwan with Mr.Neeraj
                                Chaudhary, Advocate

Crl M C No. 265/2001                                                Page 1 of 13
                        versus


       VIPIN KUMAR GUPTA & ANR.                   ..... RESPONDENTS
                        Through Respondent No.1 in person.

                                    AND
                                CRL.M.C. 1891 of 2001

       DIPIKA LAL & ANR.                                    ..... PETITIONERS
                                     Through Mr. S.D. Salwan with Mr.Neeraj
                                     Chaudhary, Advocate


                       versus


       VIPIN KUMAR GUPTA & ANR.                   ..... RESPONDENTS
                        Through Respondent No.1 in person.

CORAM:
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR

1.      Whether Reporters of local papers may be
        allowed to see the judgment?                             Yes

2.      To be referred to the Reporter or not?                   Yes

3.      Whether the judgment should be reported                  yes
       in Digest?

                                JUDGMENT

Dr. S. MURALIDHAR, J.

1. These petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973

(„CrPC‟) are between the same parties and raise common questions. Accordingly,

they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. These petitions have been filed by the wife and father-in-law of the

respondent No.1 seeking quashing of five different complaint cases filed by him

against them and certain others under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code („IPC‟)

and which pending in the court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate („MM‟),

New Delhi against them.

3. Petitioner No.1 was married to the respondent No.1 on 14th February 1997.

They have two children, a daughter Damini and a son Timmi. A twin born with

Timmi expired 15 days after his birth.

4. Respondent No.1 was working as a judicial officer in Delhi. By a

notification dated 22nd January 1999 the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi terminated

his services on the recommendation of this Court. Prior thereto, respondent No.1

was placed under suspension and judicial work was withdrawn from him some

time in November 1998.

5. According to the petitioner No.1 she was subjected to cruelty by the respondent

No.1 and his family members soon after their marriage. He became even more

violent in his actions after his dismissal from service. She left the matrimonial

home on 25th December 1999. The petitioner No.1 filed a complaint on 18th

January 2000 alleging that the respondent No.1 came to her residence, used

abusive language, hurled stones and broke the window panes, and thereafter he ran

away from there. A further complaint alleged that on 20th January 2000 respondent

No.1 made a telephonic call threatening to eliminate her and her father and take

away the minor children. Further, on 6th February 2000 respondent No.1 is said to

have called petitioner No.1 on telephone; used abusive language threatening her

and her parents and the minor children. In regard to these incidents FIR No.

28/2000 under Sections 506/323/427 IPC at Police Station Sector 7, Faridabad,

FIR No. 42/2000 at Police Station Sector 7, Faridabad under Sections 498-

A/406/506/323 IPC and FIR No. 44/2000 at Police Station Sector 7, Faridabad

under Sections 506/294/504/323 IPC were registered against respondent No.1. It

appears that these events resulted in further acrimony and led to respondent No.1

filing a series of complaints against petitioner No.1 and her father.

6. On 3rd July 2000 the respondent No.1 filed a complaint case No. 193/1 in the

court of the learned MM, Delhi against Shri Subhash, Reporter Dainik Punjab

Kesari, (accused No.1), Editor-in-Chief/Printer/Publisher, Danik Punjab Kesari

(accused No.2), City Editor/News Editor, Danik Punjab Kesari (accused No.3), the

petitioner No.1 Dipika Lal (accused No.4) and Dr. (Mrs.) Alok Deen, General

Secretary, Haryana Mahila Sangathan, Faridabad (accused No.5) alleging that a

defamatory news item has been published in Dainik Punjab Kesari edition dated

30th March 2000 titled "Nayadish key khilaf dahej mangnane wah pratarith karne

ka mamla darj" (which roughly translates as `case registered against Judge for

dowry and torture‟). It was alleged that the news item was defamatory and had

lowered the reputation of the complainant respondent No.1 and therefore, the

accused should be proceeded against for the offences under Sections

500/501/502/34 IPC. In support of this complaint, the complainant examined

himself as CW-1, Shri Laxman Das Bhatia as CW-2 and Shri Gulshan Kumar

Malhotra as CW-3. By an order dated 26th August 2000, after examining the

complaint and the pre-summoning evidence, the learned MM passed an order

recording his satisfaction that a prima facie case was made out against the accused

Nos. 1 to 4 under Section 500/34 IPC. Accordingly, summons were sent to them

to face trial. The petitioners have filed Crl M.C. No. 265 of 2001 seeking quashing

of the said complaint and all proceedings consequent thereto.

7. On 30th September 2000 respondent No.1 filed another complaint case in the

court of the learned MM, Delhi where, apart from the Editor-in-Chief, City Editor,

concerned Reporter/Correspondent of Punjab Kesari being arrayed as accused Nos.

1 to 3, the petitioner No.1 was arrayed as accused No.4 and her father Brig. (Retd.)

J.M. Lal (petitioner No.2) was arrayed as accused No.5. The allegation in the

complaint was that the accused Nos. 1 to 3 had published defamatory news item in

the newspaper Punjab Kesari Delhi edition on 4th September 2000 titled "Barkhast

magistrate patni par hatyachar karne key aarop mai girfttar" (which roughly

translates as `Dismissed magistrate arrested for torturing his wife‟). In support of

this complaint, the complainant examined himself as CW-1, Shri Pyare Lal, CW-2.

By an order dated 5th December 200 the learned MM summoned the accused

persons including the petitioners here for the offence under Section 500/501/502

read with Section 34 IPC after taking cognizance of the said offence. Aggrieved by

the said complaint and all proceedings consequent thereto, the petitioners have

filed Crl M.C. No.264 of 2001 in this Court.

8. Respondent No.1 filed on 30th September 2000 a complaint case in the court of

the learned MM, Delhi in respect of the news item published in the Punjab Kesari

Delhi Edition on 6th September 2000 titled "Purv mahanagar dandadhikari do din

key police remand par" (which roughly translates as „Ex-Metropolitan Magistrate

sent to two days‟ police remand‟). This complaint was registered as Case No.

110/1. The complainant examined himself as CW-1, Shri Pyare Lal, CW-2 and

Shri Narinder Singh, CW-3. By an order dated 5th December 2000 the learned MM

held that a prima facie case for an offence punishable under Section 500/501/502

read with Section 34 IPC was made out. Accordingly, after taking cognizance of

the said offence, the learned MM summoned the accused persons. Seeking the

quashing of the aforementioned complaint and all proceedings consequent thereto,

the petitioners have filed Crl M.C. No. 529 of 2001.

9. Respondent No.1 filed a complaint case No. 130/1 on 18th July 2000 in the court

of the learned MM, Delhi against Shir C.D. Verma, Reporter/ Correspondent,

Hindustan Times, Editor-in-Chief, Hindustan Times, Mrs. Bhula Devi, City Editor,

Hindustan Times, the petitioner No.1 and her father as accused Nos. 1 to 5

respectively in respect of news item published in the Hindustan Times New Delhi

Edition dated 31st March 2000 titled "Dowry harassment case filed against ex-

Delhi magistrate." The complainant examined Shri Rakesh Sisodia, CW-1, Shri

Gautam Mann, CW-2 and the complainant as CW-3. By an order dated 8th January

2001 the learned MM summoned the accused Nos.1,4 and 5 under Section 500/34

IPC and accused Nos. 2 and 3 under Section 501/34. The petitioners have filed Crl

M.C. No. 1890 of 2001 seeking quashing of the complaint and all the proceedings

consequent thereto.

10. On 20th July 2000 Respondent No.1 filed complaint case No. 316/1 in the court

of the learned MM, Delhi against the Editor-in-Chief, City Editor, Reporter, the

petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 being arrayed as accused Nos. 1 to 5 respectively under

Section 500/501/502/34 IPC in respect of the news titled "Dahej pratarna key

aaropi barakhat metropolitan magistrate samet char ki jamanat kharij" (which

roughly translates as „Bail plea of dismissed Metropolitan Magistrate and four

other accused in a dowry case rejected‟). In this complaint the complainant

examined himself as CW-1, Shri Shakti Chand Sharma, CW-2, Shri Devki

Nandan, CW-3 and Shri G.K. Tiwari, CW-4. By an order dated 20th January 2001

the learned MM formed an opinion that a prima facie case was made out against

accused Nos. 1,2 and 3 under Section 502 IPC and all the accused under Section

500 IPC and accordingly summoned them. The petitioners have filed Crl M.C. No.

1891 of 2001 seeking quashing of the complaint and all proceedings consequent

thereto.

11. The role attributed to the petitioners herein (i.e. the wife and the father-in-law

of respondent No.1) in each of the above five complaints is more or less similar.

The allegation is that the publication of news concerning the above litigation was

got done by petitioner No.1 and her father with the connivance of the journalists

and editors of each of the newspapers and they thereby defamed and lowered the

reputation of respondent No.1. In each of the complaints, the respondent No.1 has

examined himself and certain other witnesses as part of the pre-summoning

evidence.

12. The case of the petitioners is that they were not responsible for the publication

of the news items. In any event the news items were only a reproduction of what

transpired in the court. None of the news items refer to any press conference held

by the petitioners or describe them as the source. It is submitted that by filing the

aforementioned false criminal complaints, respondent No.1 has acted malafide to

victimize and harass the petitioners to seek vengeance for the cases instituted by

them against him. It is submitted that these proceedings are an abuse of the process

of law. It is accordingly prayed that this Court should, in exercise of its powers

under Section 482 CrPC and in the ends of justice, quash the complaints filed by

respondent No.1 against the petitioners.

13. Respondent No.1 who appeared in person first submitted that these petitions

are not supported by an affidavit of petitioner No.2 but only that of petitioner No.1

and therefore these petitions at his instance were not maintainable. Secondly, the

petitioners are guilty of suppression of material facts and therefore, they should not

be permitted to challenge the summoning order. Thirdly, it is submitted that the

petitioners have an efficacious alternative remedy by way of a revision petition

before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Fourthly, it is submitted that the

proceedings before the learned MM could be challenged only if the petitioners had

appeared before the learned MM, which they have not till date. Referring to the

pre-summoning evidence in each of the cases, it is submitted that it cannot be said

that not even a prima facie is made out against the petitioners. Finally, it is

submitted that in any event the defence of the petitioners can be examined only at

the trial and therefore, it did not call for interference at this stage. Respondent

No.1 referred to a large number of decisions in support of his plea that the powers

under Section 482 CrPC ought not to be exercised in case like the present one and

that the matter should go in fact to the trial. Given the fact that this is too well

settled a proposition, this Court does not propose to discuss these decisions.

14. This Court proposes to first examine the last two submissions made by

Respondent No.1 on merits since that is the real issue that requires to be decided.

Accordingly, it is not expressing any opinion on the several objections raised by

him to the maintainability of the petitions.

15. At the outset, it requires to be noted that the publisher, the editor and the

concerned reporter of each of the newspapers, who have been arraigned as accused,

have not come forward to seek quashing of the proceedings. Therefore, their

possible defence that each news item is a true account of what transpired during the

proceedings in the Court need not be examined at the present stage. In any event,

in view of the law as explained by the Supreme Court in Balraj Khanna v. Moti

Ram 1971 SCC (Crl) 647 and Sewakram Sobhani v. R.K. Karanjia (1981) 3 SCC

208, this would require the cases having to go to trial and evidence having to be

led.

16. As far as the petitioners are concerned, the question that arises is whether a

prima facie case can be said to have been made out against them on reading the

complaints as a whole. The other question is whether the proceedings are liable to

be quashed on the ground that they are vexatious and an abuse of the process of

law.

17. Each of the complaints is more or less similarly worded. They set out the

complainant‟s (Respondent No.1) version of the events following the marriage

between the parties. It is alleged that criminal complaints filed against him were

false and were registered in connivance with the police. It is then alleged that the

Petitioners herein disseminated false and misleading information to the press and

got published each of the offending news items which are described as

"defamatory per se" and as having "lowered the well established, esteemed,

reputation and respect of the complainant in the estimation of his relatives, friends,

known people and public as a whole."

18. In addition, in support of each of the complaints the complainant has

examined himself and other witnesses as part of the pre-summoning evidence.

Some of these witnesses have mere made specific allegations. For instance, Shri

Pyare Lal who was examined as a complainant‟s witness (CW) in the complaint

filed by the Respondent No.1 on 30th September 2000 in respect of the news item

published in Punjab Kesari, Delhi Edition dated 4th September 2000 states:

"The complainant commands a great respect amongst his friends, because he is very docile, soft spoken and helpful. On 28.9.2000, I telephonically informed the complainant that the accused No.4 and accused No. 5 had come to his house on 28.9.2000 at about 9.00 pm and had given me two newspapers i.e. Punjab Kesari dated 4.9.2000 and 6.9.2000 and proudly claimed that they had got published the news items concerning the complainant. They also told that they would continue to get defamatory news items published in various newspapers, till the complainant gives up his demand for custody of male child."

19. Shri G.K. Tiwari who was examined as CW-4 in complaint filed on 20th July

2000 in respect of the news item in Dainik Jagran dated 6th April 2000 states "in

middle July 2000 Mr. Brig Lal, father-in-law of the complainant met me in Patiala

House Courts and gave me photocopy of an FIR No. 42 registered at Sector 7

Faridabad and asked me to read the FIR and see the conduct of your colleague and

asked me to read the newspaper „Dainik Jagran‟ dated 6th April 2000."

20. Although it was urged by learned counsel for the petitioners that the above

statements are wholly improbable and unbelievable, it is not possible for this Court

at the present stage to form an opinion in that regard. These witnesses are yet to be

cross-examined. Moreover, the evidence will have to be weighed by the trial court

along with other evidence that may emerge during trial in order to form an opinion

whether the petitioners were themselves involved in the publication of the news

items and whether they are defamatory as alleged. It is not possible for this Court

to sift the pre-summoning evidence in each of the cases at the present stage.

Examining the complaints and the evidence as a whole, it cannot be said that not

even a prima facie case is made out for summoning the petitioners for the offence

under Section 500 IPC.

21. As regards the contention that the proceedings are required to be quashed on

the ground (as delineated in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Suppl 1 SCC

335) that the proceedings are "maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for

wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and

personal grudge," this Court finds that there are numerous cases filed by the one

party and the other which are pending in different courts. Given the background of

the litigation and the allegations made by one party against the other, it is not

possible to come to a definite conclusion that these proceedings can be quashed on

the ground as urged hereinabove. That too would involve appreciation of evidence

which the present proceedings under Section 482 CrPC plainly do not permit.

22. At various stages of the hearing of the present petitions this Court requested

the parties to explore the possibility of a settlement. It is unfortunate that despite

best efforts, the parties were unable to arrive at any workable settlement. It is

apparent that the long years of litigation has hardened the respective stands of the

parties. This is precluding them from seeing reason. Considering the fact that their

troubled marriage is adversely impacting their lives as well as of their young

children, this Court expresses the hope that even now the parties should consider

settling their differences and putting an end to this acrimonious and time

consuming litigation.

23. For the aforementioned reasons, these petitions and the pending applications

are dismissed. The orders granting interim stay of the proceedings in the trial court

stand vacated.

24. A certified copy of this order, will be placed on the file of each of the cases

listed hereinabove. Another certified copy shall be delivered to the concerned MM

together records of each of the cases within five days from today.

25. The parties are directed to appear before the concerned learned MM on 11th

August 2008 at 10.30 am for further proceedings. The application if any of the

petitioners for exemption from personal appearance will be dealt with by the

learned MM on merits.

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

JULY 25, 2008 rk