Mamta Rani And Anr vs Gurmeet Singh
2022 Latest Caselaw 10561 P&H

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                    CHANDIGARH


                                         CRM-A No.2684 of 2019
                                         Date of Decision: 06.09.2022

Mamta Rani & another
                                                           .........Applicants
                               Versus
Gurmeet Singh
                                                       .........Respondent


CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA

Present:- Mr. Inderjeet Singh, Advocate,
          for the applicants.

                                   ****

MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA, J.

Feeling dis-satisfied with and aggrieved by the judgment dated

20.09.2019 handed down by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate,

Naraingarh, Ambala (for short 'the trial Court') qua the acquittal of the

respondent-accused (here-in-after to be referred as 'the accused') in the

Criminal Complaint Case bearing No. Comi/631/2014 titled as 'Smt

Mamta Rani etc. vs Gurmeet Singh', as preferred by the applicants-

complainants (here-in-after to be referred as 'the complainants') against

him (accused) under Sections 499 and 500 IPC, the complainants have

moved the present application for seeking leave to prefer the appeal

(annexed herewith) to lay challenge to the said judgment.

2. Shorn and short of unnecessary details, the facts culminating

in the filing of the instant application, are that the complainants filed the

1 of 4

afore-said complaint case against the accused, alleging therein that he

(accused) owed a sum of Rs.5,60,000/- to the husband of complainant

No.1. On 04.12.2013, the accused, along-with Usha and Anil Kumar,

gave beating to her (complainant No.1) and on her raising an alarm, her

son, i.e complainant No.2, reached at the spot and saved her from the

above-named assailants. Thereafter, in order to save his skin, the accused

got DDR No.20 dated 05.12.2013 entered at the Police Station levelling

allegations therein to the effect that complainant No.1 had manhandled

him as well as the afore-said persons and she had also snatched the

amount of Rs.01 (one) lac and the gold chain from him. Subsequently,

during the enquiry, the above-said allegations were found to be false and

the 'Calandera' (report) had been presented against the accused under

Section 182 IPC, on this count and he stood convicted therein and thus,

the accused had defamed them (complainants) by levelling the false and

baseless allegations against them.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants-complainants,

at the preliminary stage, in the present application and have also perused

the file carefully.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the

accused had got the afore-mentioned DDR registered/entered against the

complainants but the allegations, as levelled by him therein, were found

to be false and hence, the proceedings under Section 182 IPC had also

been initiated against the accused on this score wherein he has already

been convicted and in these circumstances, it becomes explicit that the

2 of 4

accused had also committed the offence defined under Section 499 IPC

and punishable under Section 500 IPC by defaming the complainants but

vide the impugned judgment, the trial Court has erroneously dismissed

the criminal complaint case, as filed by the complainants against him

under the said provisions.

5. However, I do not find the above-raised contention to be

tenable at all because though, in the enquiry conducted by the police in

respect of the said DDR, the allegations, levelled therein by the accused

against the complainants, were reported to have been found to be false/

baseless and he (accused) has also been convicted by the concerned

Court in the 'Calandra' presented against him under Section 182 IPC on

the said ground but however, it has categorically been observed by the

Co-ordinate Bench in Darshan Singh vs. Avtar Singh Criminal Misc.

No. 17073-M of 2000 decided on 29.11.2001 that "where the accused

was acquitted in a criminal complaint, no offence of defamation was

made out against the person who lodged the complaint and also against

the witnesses, merely because the Magistrate did not find the accused

guilty". These observations are fully applicable to the present case.

6. Seen from yet another angle also, it has specifically been

mentioned in the impugned judgment that besides their own depositions,

the complainants did not examine any other witness to corroborate their

version regarding their reputation/image having been lowered down in

his/her estimation on account of the afore-mentioned DDR as entered at

the instance of the accused.

3 of 4

7. To add to it, the trial Court has also observed in Para No.13 of

the impugned judgment that as per the version of the complainants

themselves, the accused had got the above-said DDR registered/entered

in order to save his own skin from the legal action and it was not their

(complainants') case that the false allegations had been levelled therein

(DDR) by the accused to cause harm to their reputation/image.

8. As a sequel to the fore-going discussion, it follows that the

impugned judgment does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity,

infirmity or perversity so as to call for any interference by this Court.

Resultantly, the application in hand as well as the appeal annexed

therewith stand dismissed accordingly.

  September 06, 2022                         (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA)
                                                   JUDGE
  seema



            Whether speaking/reasoned:               Yes
            Whether Reportable:                      No




                                 4 of 4