Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satya Narayan Sharma vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 1 August, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:098862
CRM-M-38557-2014 -1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-38557-2014
Date of decision : 01.08.2023
Satya Narayan Sharma
.....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
Present: Mr.Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr.Dhruv Sihag, AAG, Haryana
Mr.VK Sheoran, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 5
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J.
1. The present petition under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed for
setting aside the order dated 30.09.2014, Annexure P-1, passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, allowing the revision petition filed against the
order dated 24.03.2014, Annexure P-2, vide which learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st
Class, Charkhi Dadri had summoned respondent Nos.2 to 5 in a complaint filed
under Sections 500 and 120B IPC.
2. Briefly put, the facts as recapitulated from the complaint are that both
the parties reside in the same vicinity. An FIR No.200 dated 03.11.2003 was
registered under Section 294 IPC against the son of the petitioner, in which he was
acquitted by the trial Court. A complaint filed for initiation of proceedings under
Section 182 IPC was dismissed vide order dated 13.12.2010 by the learned Illaqa
Magistrate on the ground that it was not presented by the competent authority.
Thereafter, respondent No.2 lodged an FIR No.174 dated 27.08.2006 under
Sections 341/354 IPC against the son of the petitioner, whereby he was convicted
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:098862
CRM-M-38557-2014 -2 -
vide judgment dated 20.12.2013. However, the petitioner filed a criminal complaint
under Sections 500, 120B IPC against accused-respondent Nos.2 to 5, wherein they
were summoned by the trial Court vide order dated 24.03.2014, which was set
aside by the Additional Sessions Judge while allowing the revision petition, vide
order dated 30.09.2014, challenge to which is laid in the present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the Revisional
Court has committed grave error while setting aside the well reasoned order passed
by the trial Court, whereby the private respondents were summoned. There were
sufficient allegations levelled in the complaint against them regarding the false
complaint under Section 354 IPC made against the son of the petitioner, which was
written by accused-respondent No.3 Sarup Singh, retired ASI in connivance with
other accused, whereas no such incident had taken place, that led to him selling his
house and leaving his business. Kalendra filed by the accused-respondents was also
dismissed. Thus, he prayed for restoring the order passed by the trial Court by
setting aside the order of the Revisional Court.
4. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 5 stated that the son of the
petitioner had wrongfully restrained the maternal sister of respondent No.2 and
caught hold of her hand intending to outrage her modesty, for which the FIR was
lodged and he was convicted. The appeal filed against his conviction was also
dismissed. Further, it was stated that the Kalendra was infact filed by the police and
not by the accused-respondent Nos. 2 to 5, against the petitioner and his son, which
was dismissed only on the ground that it was not filed by the competent officer.
The present complaint was filed only to create pressure for compromising the
matter in the FIR. The petitioner is in the habit of filing complaints, whereby a
complaint had also been filed against the respondents as well as their family
members, but the learned Magistrate finding no credibility, discharged them vide
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:098862
CRM-M-38557-2014 -3 -
order dated 18.01.2016. It was further stated that the petitioner had filed another
complaint under Sections 420 and 500 IPC against respondent No.4, which was
also dismissed by the SDJM, Charkhi Dadri vide order dated 04.08.2015, finding
no substance in it. Thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present petition.
5. Heard and perused.
6. Before proceeding to deliberate upon the abovesaid, a gainful
reference would be made to the provisions of Sections 499 and 500 IPC, which
read thus:
"499 Defamation− Whoever, by words either spoken or
intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations,
makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person
intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that
such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said,
except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person.
Explanation 1−It may amount to defamation to impute anything
to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the
reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful
to the feelings of his family or other near relatives.
Explanation 2−It may amount to defamation to make an
imputation concerning a company or an association or
collection of persons as such.
Explanation 3−An imputation in the form of an alternative or
expressed ironically, may amount to defamation.
Explanation 4−No imputation is said to harm a person's
reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the
estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character
of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect
of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person,
or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a
loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful.
xx xx xx
500 Punishment for defamation− Whoever defames another
shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which
may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."
7. In Sunil Akhya vs. H.M. Jadwet AIR 1968 Cr.LJ 736, Calcutta High
Court observed that the three essential ingredients for the offence of defamation
required are (i) making or publishing any imputation concerning any person; (ii)
such imputations must have been made by words either spoken or intended to be
read or by signs or by visible representation; (iii) such imputation must have been
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:098862
CRM-M-38557-2014 -4 -
made with the intention to harm or with the knowledge or having reason to believe
that it will harm the reputation of the person concerned. Therefore, the intention to
cause harm is a "sine qua non" for the offence under Section 499 IPC.
8. The relevant para of the order of Revisional Court, whereby the
summoning order was set aside, reads thus:
"The order of learned Magistrate clearly shows that he had
passed the order in routine manner. He nowhere observed that
due to registration of the FIR and calendar, complainant was
defamed in the eyes of general public. As per law laid down in
Pankaj Badlani and others versus M/s Nectar Lifesciences
Limited and others, 2013(1) RCR (Criminal) (P&H) 143,
criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course.
The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect
that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law
applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations
made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and
documentary in support thereto and that would be sufficient for
the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the
accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the
time of recording of preliminary evidence. the accused cannot
be summoned in a routine manner..."
9. It is apparent from the order passed by the Magistrate that apart from
reiterating the averments of complaint, no opinion was formed to issue process for
summoning the accused-respondents for an offence punishable under Sections
500/120B IPC. The operative portion of the summoning order reads thus:
"After going through the relevant record on the court file,
particularly preliminary record as well as contents of the
complaint. I find it a sufficient cause for summoning the
accused under Sections 500/120B IPC for facing the trial.
Accordingly, all the accused are hereby summoned for facing
trial under Sections 500/120-B IPC for 25.04.2014."
10. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter.
Criminal law cannot possibly be set into motion as a matter of course. The order of
the Magistrate, summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to
the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of
allegations made in the complaint and the evidence, both oral and documentary, in
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:098862
CRM-M-38557-2014 -5 -
support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in
bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent
spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the
accused. Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and
may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit
answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then
examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused, as
held by Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of M/s Pepsi Limited vs. Special
Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749.
11. The Revisional Court has rightly set aside the order passed by the
Magistrate. It is settled law that the order of taking cognizance and also summoning
of the accused persons is not to be passed by the Magistrate mechanically, just on
the asking of the complainant, but after due application of mind.
12. The factual matrix of the case above when considered in the backdrop
of the legal principles enumerated, leads this Court to the conclusion that there is
no perversity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the Revisional Court,
thus, the present petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.
01.08.2023 (AMAN CHAUDHARY)
gsv JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes / No
Whether reportable :Yes / No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:098862
5 of 5
