J.R. CHOPRA, J.—This petition is directed against the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Sri Ganganagar dated 31.3.1986 where by the learned Magistrate registered the case against the petitioner under s. 500 IPC.

2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this petition briefly stated are that one Smt. Manju Pande, Advocate of Sri Ganganagar filed a complaint against the petitioner as also one Shri Hardeosingh Sandhu, Advocate of Jodhpur under secs. 200, 209, 211 and 500 IPC pleading inter-alia, that the petitioner Makhansingh and Shri Hardeosingh Sandhu filed a transfer application for transfer of a sessions case from the court of the then Sessions Judge, Shri R.S. Verma. It has been alleged by Smt. Pande that her husband is a Senior Lecturer in English and her father is the Superintendent Engineer (Irrigation) at Sri Ganganagar. She has been standing counsel of Government Prees and Municipal Board, Sri Ganganagar. She is a member of the Central Jail Vigilance Commit-es as also of the Legal Aid Committees. She is also a member of the District Children Court and has been appointed as a Honorary Magistrate for that Court. She has stated that in transfer application No. 846 of 1985 (Makhansingh vs. State) filed in this court, it has been alleged that Smt. Manju Pande is a much Junior Advocate than others and she has conducted very few cases so far. She has also conducted very few sessions cases. As regards the trial of that case, it has been alleged in the transfer application that she was unable to cross-examine the witnesses properly and so, actually, the Sessions Judge has acted as a defence counsel. It was further alleged in that application that Smt. Manju Pande acts as mediator of Shri R.S. Verma for settlement of illegal deals about the decisions of cases. This allegation has been made on account of certain complaints made against Shri R.S. Verma about certain sessions cases. She has complained that by these averments in the transfer petition, her prestige has been lowered down in her legal profession and, therefore, she has filed the above said complaint.

3. The learned Magistrate ordered for the registration of the complaint and after that it was fixed for recording the statements of the complainant and as also of her witnesses under ss. 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The statements of her four witnesses were eventually recorded. They are P.W. 1 Smt. Manju Pande, PW 2 Jitendra Kinra, PW 3 Ramniwas and PW 4 Tejsingh. After hearing the arguments on 31,3.86, the learned Magistrate ordered that a case under s. 500 I.P.C. be registered against the petitioner Makhansingh. No order was made by the learned Magistrate about second accused i.e. Shri Hardeo Singh Sandhu.

4. Aggrieved against this order, the petitioner has preferred this petition.

5. I have heard Mr. Nandlal and Mridul. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.K. Singhal, learned counsel for the non-petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two questions in his petition one is whether for the purpose of taking cognizance in a complaint case, the statements recorded under s. 200 Cr.P.C. can be looked into or the court is competent to consider only the complaint. Closely connected with this question, certain ancillary points have been raised during arguments as to when it can be held that a competent court has taken cognizance of an offence whether the order taking cognizance should be a speaking order which must specifically mention whether all the limitations put on the powers of the court to take cognizance under Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure have some application in the matter or not? The second question that has been raised by the petitioner is whether the litigants rights to complain before the High Court or Tribunal against the conduct of a trial Judge can form the subject matter of defamation case against the petitioner. It was contended that if he persues his legal rights or remedies available to him unde

Click Here to Read the rest of this document