The accused's right to set up a defense and the complainant's remedy through civil proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Anoop Chitkara, J.

Challenging the judgment passed by Sessions Court, Una, dismissing the Criminal Revision Petition, filed by the petitioner and upholding the order passed by Judicial Magistrate, Una, who after holding an inquiry did not find sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused, and dismissed the complaint of the petitioner under Section 203 of CrPC, the complainant, who is a practicing Advocate, has now come up before this Court, seeking issuance of process for defamation.

2. The petitioner filed a complaint in the Court of Ld. Additional CJM, Una, HP, under Section 190(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, after now called CrPC, against Shri Bhoop Ram Thakur, who was father of his juvenile client, for defaming him in the reply filed by him in another litigation between petitioner Dinesh Chander Sharma and Bhoop Ram Thakur.

3. The petitioner in his complaint dated Jan 6, 2008, where apparently figure ‘2008’ is a writing error, and it is a complaint dated Jan 6, 2009, alleged that he is a practicing lawyer, and Shri Bhoop Ram Thakur (respondent herein), had engaged him as a counsel for his minor son, in a case pending before the Juvenile Court, Una. Reading of the complaint reveals that due to some financial transactions between the petitioner and the father of his juvenile client, a dispute arose between them, which led to filing of other cases. While replying to one such criminal complaint, which was barred by limitation, and the accused opposed the extension of time under Section 473 CrPC, by filing a written reply (Ext. C-1), it was alleged by the accused that he was harassed, and an amount of Rs. 24,000/- obtained from him, by putting pressure on him. In reply, the accused has further mentioned that the counsel had threatened him if he would not make the payment. The response specifies that a compromise had taken place between them, at the intervention of President of Bar Association, and around twelve Advocates.

4. The petitioner states in his complaint that this reply has leveled false allegations against him, intending, knowing, and having reasons to believe that the same would harm his reputation, socially, morally, and professionally, and thus committed an offence punishable under Section 500 IPC.

5. The Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 1, Una received the said complaint vide endorsement dated Jan 6, 2009. It appears that the vide order dated Jan 8, 2009, the Court took cognizance of the complaint and posted the matter for preliminary evidence.

6. In the preliminary inquiry, the Court recorded the statement of the complainant under Section 200 CrPC, and took on its record the documentary evidence.

7. Vide order dated Mar 19, 2010, passed in Cr. Complaint No. 3-I of 2009, titled as Dinesh Chander Sharma vs. Bhoop Ram Thakur, the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 1 Una, held that since the inquiry does not conclude that the allegations leveled by the accused were with such intention to harm the reputation of the complainant, and accordingly the Judicial Magistrate did not find any ground to proceed against the accused of having committed an offence of criminal defamation, punishable under Section 500 IPC, and dismissed the complaint.

8. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant challenged the said order by filing a Criminal Revision Petition before the Sessions Judge, Una. Vide order dated Aug 23, 2011, passed in Criminal Revision No. 15 of 2010, titled Dinesh Chander Sharma vs. Bhoop Ram Thakur, the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Una, remanded the matter back to the Judicial Magistrate.

9. Vide order dated Aug 9, 2012, the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 1, Una, after re-considering the matter, did not find any grounds to assume the complicity of the accused in the alleged offence and as such, dismissed the complaint.

10. The petitioner again challenged the said dismissal by filing a Criminal Revision Petition before the Sessions Judge, Una. Vide order dated Oct 2