Surendra Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 739 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Surendra Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another on 4 July, 2025

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
          Criminal Misc. Application No.1384 of 2022
Surendra Singh                                      .........Applicant

                                Versus

State of Uttarakhand & another                   .........Respondents

                                 With
          Criminal Misc. Application No.1387 of 2022
Surendra Singh                                      .........Applicant

                                Versus

State of Uttarakhand & another                   .........Respondents


Mr. Devesh Bishnoi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. S.C. Dumka, AGA with Ms. Sweta Dobhal, Brief Holder for the State.
Mr. Amar Murti Shukla, learned counsel for respondent no.2.

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

Since these Criminal Miscellaneous Applications preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C.have been filed by the parties assailing the same set of proceedings under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code and the parties to the litigation are also one and the same. Hence, these petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts of C482 No.1384 of 2022 are taken into consideration.

2. The facts in brief are that a complaint was filed by the respondents against the present applicant stating therein that the applicant vide letter dated 22.12.2021 defamed the respondent stating that the respondents are mentally unstable and are conspiring to usurp his property. The contents of this

letter was circulated in WhatsApp and Facebook and also sold near Ramlila Ground, Ram Nagar Road, Kashipur. On these set of allegations, the applicant was summoned by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur in Criminal Case No.1207 of 2022 (Computer No.555 of 2022) and Case No.1208 of 2022 (Computer No.556 of 2022), under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The applicant filed revisions against the said summons in the court of learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Kashipur, who in turn upheld the impugned summons and dismissed the revision vide order dated 27.07.2022 in Criminal Revision No.140 of 2022 and 141 of 2022. Hence, this C482 application.

3. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the complaint was filed by the respondents as an outcome of some family disputes between the parties and is purely on account of the said dispute and the proceedings have been initiated without any cause. He also submitted that the fact of the matter is that the applicant is himself being humiliated and atrocities are being committed against him by the respondents. The learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that the said letter was written by him in good faith and to protect his own interest and is thereby covered under exception 9 to Section 499 IPC.

4. The learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the bare perusal of the complaint does not prove any mensrea and actusreus against the applicant and therefore, the learned courts below have erred by passing a

summoning order against the applicant. He also submitted an unconditional apology towards the respondents if they have been hurt by the statements of the applicant.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the State submitted that the bare perusal of the complaint clearly reveals that an offence under Section 500 IPC has been committed by the applicant and the learned courts below have committed no irregularity in summoning the applicant.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that right to reputation is fundamental to right to life enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and is also of the view that if money is lost, nothing is lost, if health is lost, something is lost, but if reputation is lost, everything is lost. Therefore, this Court does not deem it fit to quash the impugned proceedings by invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction provided under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

7. Accordingly, the present C482 applications are hereby dismissed.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 04.07.2025 Ravi