M.P.Singh Sahni vs State & Ors.
2013 Latest Caselaw 2583 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                              RESERVED ON : 1st FEBRUARY, 2013
                               DECIDED ON : 30th MAY, 2013

+            CRL.M.C. 3773/2003 & CRL.M.A.5093/2003
      M.P.SINGH SAHNI                             ..... Petitioner
                         Through :   Mr.M.P.Singh Sahni in person.
                         versus
      STATE & ORS.                                ..... Respondents
                         Through :   Mr.Harnam Singh in person.


       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.GARG, J.

1. Present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article

227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner for

quashing of order dated 05.01.2002 by which he was summoned for

committing offence punishable under Section 500 IPC.

2. It reveals that complaint case was filed by respondent No.2

against the petitioner on 11.11.1997 for committing offence under Section

500 IPC. It was stated that on 22.07.1991 an agreement was executed with

the petitioner by which he was to provide professional/ consultancy

services to him. Several correspondences were exchanged between them

in pursuance of the said agreement. The complainant further alleged that

the petitioner sent several fax messages thorough his FAX No.2465421 at

Kuwait on his FAX and telephone No.6445057 and 6460681 respectively.

He permitted the petitioner to send the messages at FAX No.6466796

installed at the residence of his tenant when his fax was out of order. The

petitioner started using derogatory and un-parliamentary language in the

fax messages sent by him at the fax installed at tenant's residence.Fax

messages dated 02.09.1996, 06.08.1997, 10.08.1997 and 27.08.1997,

contained un-parliamentary language. The petitioner was aware that the

tenant will have the opportunity to read the fax messages. The petitioner

with an intention to cause damage to his reputation published the

defamatory material without due care and caution. A legal notice was

served on 08.09.1997 to the petitioner through his counsel to tender

unconditional apology. The petitioner did not send any reply.

3. The respondent No.2/ complainant examined himself as CW-

1 besides producing CW-2 (Harminder Singh) in pre-summoning

evidence. The Trial Court by the impugned order was of the view that

there was sufficient evidence to proceed against the petitioner under

Section 500 IPC. Aggrieved by the said orders the petitioner has preferred

the petition.

4. It is pointed out that the respondent did not disclose the name

of the tenant at whose residence the fax in question was installed. The

respondent has filed various false cases to blackmail him. The respondent

No.2 has controverted his arguments.

5. I have examined the contents of the fax messages proved on

record in the pre-summoning evidence. Prima facie all these fax messages

contain defamatory language. The fax messages were sent on FAX

No.6466796 which is purportedly installed at the residence of the

complainant's tenant. Legal notice dated 08.09.1997 (Ex.CW-1/Q) was

sent which remained un-replied. At this stage, there was enough material

before the Trial Court to proceed against the petitioner. The oral testimony

of the petitioner was corroborated with the documentary evidence on

record. CW-2 (Harminder Singh) also deposed that he had read contents

of the fax messages (Ex.CW-1/A to Ex.CW-1/J) at the fax installed in the

office. In the fax messages, the petitioner levelled allegations and

imputations against the complainant. It finished his respect and reputation

in their eyes. He also revealed the name of the tenant Anil Bahl at whose

fax machine the messages were sent. The defence taken by the petitioner

is to be considered by the Trial Court during the trial. It is not necessary to

prove that the complainant actually suffered directly or indirectly from the

scandalous imputations alleged. It is sufficient to show that the accused

intended to harm or knew or had reasons to believe that the imputations

would harm the reputation of the complainant. Reputation can be defined

to be good name, the credit, honour or character which is derived from a

favourable public opinion or esteem and character by report. The right to

enjoyment of a good reputation is a valuable privilege and necessary to

human society. The complaint case contains sufficient material to proceed

against the petitioner for committing offence under Section 500 IPC. I

find no merits in the petition and the same is dismissed.

6. Interim order (if any) stands vacated. Pending application

stands disposed of. Trial Court record (if any) be sent back forthwith.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE MAY 30, 2013 tr