Defamation requires proof of a derogatory statement made publicly that lowers a person's reputation, which was not established in this case.

JUDGMENT :

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. Appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) has been filed against the judgment dated 05.07.2018 whereby the learned MM dismissed the Complaint under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “ IPC ”) filed by the Petitioner/Gangadharan C. against Accused persons, i.e. Accused No. 1/Sh. Pankaj Mehrotra, the President, Accused No. 2/Sh. S. Chandrasekhar, the Secretary, and Accused No. 3/Sh. HS Bhandari and 4/Smt. Anjana Bhandari are the members of the Society, Accused No. 5/Sh. Swaminathan is the Advisor to the President of the Management Committee, Accused Nos. 6 to 10 (Sh. M Arshad Khan, Smt. Shanti Bhardwaj, Sh. CM Bhardwaj, Smt. Surender Kaur, Inderjeet Singh, respectively) who were the members of the Management Committee.

2. The Complainant/Petitioner had filed a Complaint under Section 500 IPC wherein he narrated that he is a member of a Society, i.e. Naveen Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited, in which he resides with his wife and family. He had been allotted a car parking in the Society in a lottery on 03.05.2009, in regard to which there was a dispute, about which he had made the Complaint to the President of the Society wherein he stated that Accused No. 3 and 4 had occupied his car parking. They had erased the allotted parking number and had started using it by affixing their own house number.

3. The Accused No. 4 had written a Letter dated 06.05.2009 to Sh. Pankaj Mehrotra, Accused No. 1, President of the Society. He also made a Complaint against the Accused person in P.S. Dwarka on 06.06.2009. However, no action was taken. Thereafter, the Accused person started threatening the Complainant to kill him and also started calling him as a “mental case”. Because of these kinds of threats, the Complainant was unable to come to his house for a few days. His wife also made a Complaint dated 13.06.2009 to PS Dwarka.

4. The Complainant also filed a Complaint against the Respondents/Accused persons, in the Office of Deputy Registrar (Arbitration ground). A Reply was filed by the Society through the Managing Committee wherein it was stated that the Complainant is a case of mental disorder and it was requested that he be referred to a mental hospital or to his Department in order to avoid day-to-day quarrelling and to prevent the trouble being created in the society compound and to the residents at large in the Society.

5. The Complainant asserted that he is not a person suffering from mental disorder and has filed his medical prescription dated 26.11.2010 in support thereof.

6. The Accused persons also called the Complainant a cheater, fraud, thug, and a case of mental disorder, without any provocation. They had failed to restrict themselves from such expressions against the Complainant. Their intentions are quite clear to damage the reputation and to lower his social and personal image in the eyes of society and public.

7. It was further asserted that such words were used on 03.05.2009 in the presence of the public persons in the public place and to the Policeman. He was similarly abused on 14.03.2010 and on 23.06.2010 openly in the presence of many persons. The Complainant thus, filed the Complaint under Section 500 IPC against the accused persons, the Respondent.

8. The Complainant examined himself as CW1 wherein he reiterated the contents of his Complaint.

9. The Accused persons were summoned on 21.10.2013 for the offence under Section 500 IPC . Thereafter, post-summoning evidence was led wherein the Complainant adopted his pre-summoning evidence. The witness was extensively cross-examined by the