Legal representatives cannot be prosecuted for defamation based on alleged defamatory statements made by the deceased party in the plaint.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the order dated 24.05.2018 passed by the learned Excise Mobile Magistrate, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court) in complaint filed by the respondent, titled, "Shiv Kumar vs. Smt. Sudershan Gupta and others" under section 500 RPC by virtue of which process has been issued against the petitioners and also the criminal proceedings arising out of aforesaid complaint pending before the trial court.

2. The petitioners have impugned the aforesaid proceedings on the ground that no offence under section 500 RPC is made out and that the impugned order as well as criminal proceedings initiated thereto are required to be closed on the ground that the alleged defamatory statement made in the suit before the court of learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu was made by the husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioner No. 2, namely, Sh. Natha Ram and not by the petitioners as the petitioners had become party after the demise of said Natha Ram and further that the complaint filed by the respondent deserves to be quashed as the same has been filed by the respondent with mala fide.

3. Mr. Jamrodh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the complaint is not maintainable as the alleged defamatory statement was made by the predecessor in interest of the petitioners and the petitioners have simply stepped into his shoes for the purpose of continuing the suit filed by Natha Ram and further that the complaint has been filed with mala fide.

4. Per contra, Mr. Amarvir Singh Manhas, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that the petitioners continued with the defamatory statement as made in the plaint by their predecessor in interest as such, they are liable to be prosecuted and punished for commission of offence under section 500 RPC.

5. Heard and perused the record.

6. Brief facts for the disposal of the present petition are that a suit for possession of the land as well as for permanent prohibitory injunction was filed by one Natha Ram against the respondent and in paras 5 and 6 of the said suit, it was stated by said Natha Ram predecessor in interest of the petitioners that because of the hospitalization of the plaintiff, the defendant (respondent) has taken the benefit of the absence of the plaintiff (Natha Ram) and trespassed upon the land of the plaintiff without any right whatsoever. Para Nos. 5 and 6 of the plaint are reproduced as under:-

"5. That because of the hospitalization of the plaintiff, the defendant has taken the benefit of the absence of the plaintiff and trespassed upon the land of the plaintiff without any right whatsoever. The defendant is a known land grabber and has forcibly and illegally trespassed upon and occupied the land of the plaintiff".

"6. That the defendant is also a Government employee working in the Forest Department and has accumulated wealth beyond his known source of income and has hired goons to perpetuate the illegality by committing trespass over the land of the plaintiff ".

7. The said suit was filed on 12.08.2015 and the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Jammu vide its judgment dated 30.12.2017 dismissed the said suit on the issue of maintainability without trying the same on merits.

8. Further, it is evident from the record that the Natha Ram, predecessor in interest of the petitioners passed away on 02.12.2015 and the petitioners were brought on record as legal heirs of the deceased Natha Ram (plaintiff) to continue the suit filed by the predecessor in interest of the petitioners. After the dismissal of the suit, the respondent filed the complaint on 16.03.2018 against the petitioners regarding the alleged defamatory averments made in the plaint by the predecessor in interest-plaintiff and the learned trial court vide order dated 24.05.2018 issued the process against the petitioners. A perusal of the order dated 24.05.2018 reveals that the learned trial