Punjab-Haryana High Court

Ashokdeep Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 15 January, 2025

Author: Gurvinder Singh Gill

Bench: Gurvinder Singh Gill, Jasjit Singh Bedi

                                                Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005574

     CRM-A-177-2021 (O&M)




                                                        (1)


     IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                       AT CHANDIGARH



                                                          CRMM-A-177-2021 (O&M)
                                                          Date of Decision: 15.01.2025


     Ashokdeep Singh                                                 ..........Appellant

                                               Versus

     State of Punjab & others                                        .......Respondents


     CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI


     Present:          Mr. S.K.Bawa, Advocate,
                       for the appellant.

                       Mr. Prabhdeep Singh Dhaliwal, AAG, Punjab
                                                          Punjab,
                       for respondent No.1.


     GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.

1. Aggrieved by the acquittal of respondents No.2 & 3, namely, Jarnail

Singh and PHG PH Balbir Singh vide judgment dated 08.03.2019 passed by

the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar in respect of a criminal

complaint filed under Sections 499, 500, 502, 506 IPC, the complainant

has preferred the instant appeal.

2. The complainant instituted a complaint against Jarnail Singh, Ram Singh

(since deceased) and PHG Balbir Singh for offences under Sections 499,

500, 502, 506 IPC, wherein the complainant stated that he is an employee

of the Punjab State Power Corporation posted at Alawalpur, Jalandhar and

enjoys a good reputation on account of his dedicated work and integrity.

1 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005574

CRM-A-177-2021 (O&M)

He had filed a complaint against some police officials of Police Post

Alawalpur, Adampur, Adampur, who had been harassing him. Jarnail Singh

(respondent no.2) and Ram Singh (expired) along with some other

officials used to pressurize him to withdraw the complaint moved by the

complainant against the police employees. It is alleged that PHG Balbir

Singh (respondent no.3) was working in the police department and was

hand in glove with the other accused. The complainant alleged that

Jarnail Singh and Ram Singh tried to defame him by leveling defamatory

allegations against him to the effect that he is a drunkard and is of

quarrelsome nature and that they used to say such things in the presence

of public at large and in the presence of the con consumers who used to visit

the office where complainant was working.

working. It is alleged that the aforesaid

Jarnail Singh and Ram Singh even leveled allegations to the effect that the

complainant had misappropriated copper and iron articles of the

Electricity Department Department and circulated their joint statements amongst the

members of the public in order to defame him. When the co complainant

moved an application to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar

(Rural) against PHG Balbir Singh, Singh, then the accused in conni connivance with

each other leveled false defamatory allegations against him before the

Police Officers.

Officer . The accused are even alleged to have circulated the said

defamatory statements before the employees of his office including senior

officers. The complainant complainant alleged that on account of such conduct of the

accused, the complainant had suffered mental harassment, tension and

agony and had ha gone in depression. It is alleged that such defamatory

statements were published by the accused despite the fact that the ssame

2 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005574

CRM-A-177-2021 (O&M)

were not true and were circulated in order to harm the reputation and

goodwill of the complainant.

3. The complainant, in his preliminary evidence evidence, himself stepped into

witness-box box as CW-1 CW 1 and also examined CW CW-2 Jaswinder Singh, CW-3

Satish Kumar, CW-4 CW Satnam Singh, CW-55 HC Tarsem Lal, CW CW-6 Satpal

Singh, AJE and CW-7 CW Mangat Ram, JE.

4. The trial Court upon finding sufficient grounds to proceed against the

accused ordered for summoning them for offences punishable under

Sections 499, 500, 502, 02, 506 IPC vide order dated 24.04.2018 so as to face

trial. Since accused Ram Singh expired, the proceedings qua him stood

abated.. Notice of accusation was served upon the other two namely,

Jarnail Singh and PHG Balbir Singh on 21.12.2018 to which they ppleaded

not guilty and claimed trial.

5. The complainant, in order to substantiate the charge charges, himself stepped into

the witness--box as CW-1, 1, wherein he proved copy of application moved

by him to SSP (Rural) dated 06.09.2013 as Ex.CW1, copy of complaint

dated 26.09.2013 as Ex.CW2, copy of application moved by accused as

Ex.CW3, statements of accused as Ex.CW4 & Ex.CW5, copies of

attendance registers as Ex.CW6, Ex.CW7, Ex.CW8, statement of PHG

Balbir Singh as Ex.CW9, copy of notice as Ex.CW10, postal receipts as

Ex.CW11, Ex.CW12 and Ex.CW13. The complainant, however, did not

examine any other witness and closed his evidence while placing on

record copies of power-cut power cut register, complaint register as Mark Mark-C to

Mark-F. Pursuant thereto, the statements of the accused were recorded in

3 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005574

CRM-A-177-2021 (O&M)

terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they pleaded false implication. The

accused, however, did not choose to lead any evidence in defence.

6. The trial Court framed the following points for determination:

1. Whether the accused on 25.09.2013 moved a false and frivolous complaint against complainant intending to harm or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of the complainant and committed offence punishablee under Section 500 IPC?

2. Whether the accused on or before said date, offered for sale printed substance containing defamatory matter against complainant and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 502 IPC IPC?

3. Whether the accused on the said date, criminally intimated the complainant with dire consequences and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 506 IPC?

7. The trial Court upon considering the evidence on record held that the

complainant had failed to establish the charges fra framed against the accused

and consequently acquitted them vide impugned judgment dated

08.03.2019..

8. Learned counsel for the appellant, appellant, while assailing acquittal of accused,

submitted that the complainant had stated in detail with regard to the

manner in which the accused had been defaming him by publishing

defamatory statements in the presence of members of public, in the

presence of his colleagues and also in the presence oof various consumers,

who used to come to the office where he was working and that there being

no evidence to the contrary, the statement could not have been discarded discarded.

4 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005574

CRM-A-177-2021 (O&M)

It has been submitted that the allegations leveled against him as regards

his integrity were absolutely baseless and false and under these

circumstances, the accused ought to have been held guilty for having

committed offence under Section 499 IPC punishable under Section 500,

and also for offences punishable under section 502 & 506 IPC.

9. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have also perused the

record of the case.

10. Before proceeding to consider the evidence led by the appellant, it is

apposite to bear in mind the provisions of Section 499 IPC, wherein the

offence under 'defamation' has been defined. Section 499 IPC reads as

under:

"499.

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 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 excepted, to defame that person.

Explanation 1.--It 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 fellings of his family or other near relatives.

Explanation 2.--It It may amount to defamation to make an imputa imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such.

Explanation 3.--An An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation.

Explanation 4.--No 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

5 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005574

CRM-A-177-2021 (O&M)

person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a lo loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful.

disgraceful."

11. From a perusal of Section ection 499 IPC, it can be discerned that a complainant

in order er to establish his case would be required to prove the following

basic ingredients:

(i) making or publishing of any imputation concerning the complainant;

(ii) such imputation must have been made by the use of words or signs either written, spoken or visible; and

(iii) such imputation must be made with an intention to cause harm or with the knowledge or having reasons to believe that it will harm the reputation of the concerned concerned.

12. Section 499 IPC also provides for certain exceptions as have been

enumerated therein. In the instant case,, the complainant apart from

himself stepping into witness-box witness as CW--1 has not examined any other

witness to lend corroboration to his case so as to substantiate the

allegations. Since it is the specific case of the complainant that the

defamatory famatory words were uttered in the presence of the members of the

public and also in the presence of his colleagues and that various false

statements as regards his reputation were also circulated, it was incumbent

upon the complainant to have examined som some person before whom the

accused had made such statements or to whom the accused had circulated

the defamatory statements. Although the complainant/appellant has

placed on record certain documents, but the same have not been proved in