Back
2001 Supreme(P&H) 1279
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
R.C.Kathuria, J.
Harcharan Singh
Versus
Hari Singh
Criminal Misc. No. 1306 of 1992,
Decided On : NOVEMBER 19, 2001
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of intention to cause harm and the manifestation of such intention through the publication of imputations in the context of the offense under Section 499 I.P.C.
Headnote:
Defamation - False Complaints - Indian Penal Code Sections 211, 500 - The court discussed the provisions of Sections 211 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, emphasizing the elements of defamation and the requirement of intention to harm the reputation of the person concerned. The court highlighted the necessity of publication of imputations and the manifestation of intention to cause harm in the context of the offense under Section 499 I.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought quashing of orders dismissing the complaint filed against the respondents-accused under Sections 211 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused had made false complaints against the petitioner, causing harm to his reputation and status.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused's complaints did not amount to defamation as there was no intention to harm the petitioner's reputation and the imputations were not made public. The court upheld the dismissal of the complaint by the lower courts.
Issues: The core issue was whether sending the complaints to various authorities amounted to defamation and publication within the ambit of Section 500 I.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of intention to cause harm and the manifestation of such intention through the publication of imputations in the context of the offense under Section 499 I.P.C.
Final Decision: The petition seeking quashing of the impugned orders was dismissed due to lack of merit.
R.C.Kathuria, J.
1. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 10.8.1991 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh upholding the order dated 11.3.1991 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chandigarh dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner against the respondents-accused under Sections 211 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Harcharan Singh-complainant was employed as a Clerk in the office of the Director, Food and Supplies, Haryana, Chandigarh. His relations have been residing in village Devi Nagar where Hari Singh and Tarlok Singh respondents- accused also resided. He has been visiting his relations in village Devi Nagar. The visit of the complainant to his relations was not liked by the accused as they were inimical towards them. On this account both the accused before a grudge against the complainant and for that reason they had been making false complaints against him and his relations.
3. One of the complaints was made by the accused in the year 1984 to the Managing Director, Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Punjab, Chandigarh. Another complaint dated 2.1.1986 was made by accused No. 2 to the Director, Food and Supplies, Punjab, Chandigarh and Managing Director, Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Sector 17, Chandigarh. Tarlok Singh made complaint dated 23.11.1987 to the Secretary to Government to Haryana, Department of Vigilance, Chandigarh and in respect of the allegations made therein in enquiry was made by the Vigilance Department but the complaint was found to be baseless. This did not debtor the accused and in connivance with each other they made another complaint to the Secretary to the Government of Haryana, Vigilance Department, Chandigarh and again on 18.1.1988 to the Chief Minister, Haryana, Chandigarh. The substance of the allegations made against the complainant was that he had purchased land and had not sent an intimation in this respect to the department. The above stated false complaints made by the accused had lowered his prestige and status in the eyes of his colleagues in the department, friends, relatives and co-villagers. On the basis of these allegations, the complainant prayed that the accused be prosecuted under Sections 211 and 500 I.P.C.
4. Harcharan Singh, complainant supported the facts stated in the compliant when he appeared as CW-7/A. In addition, he examined Ashwani Kumar (CW-1), Avtar Singh (CW-2), Bhupinder Malhotra (CW-3), Shiv Shanker (CW-4), Dinesh Sharma (CW-5), Labh Singh (CW-6) and Anita (CW-7) in the preliminary evidence.
5. Ashwani Kumar (CW-2) is a witness of record as he proved the photostat copies of the complaints Exs. P/1 to P/2. Avtar Singh is the official of the Food and Supplies Department, who proved copy of the complaint Ex. P.3. Bhupinder Malhotra had also produced copy of Enquiry Report Ex. CW-3/A and copies of the complaints and letters Exs. CW-3/B to CW-3/F. Shiv Shanker had proved the copies of the complaints dated 23.11.1987 and 18.1.1988 Exs. PW-4/1 and PW-4/2. Dinesh Sharma had maintained that he had good relations with the complainant earlier but because of the enquiry made by the Vigilance Department, he had severed his connection with him. Labh Singh in his deposition had testified about the complaints made and enquiry made in respect of these complaints. He further stated that because of the complaints made the other employees had lost confidence in him. Anita had produced photostat copies of the complaints Exs. PW-6/A to PW-6/C.
6. The learned trial Magistrate taking into account the evidence adduced by the complainant came to the conclusion that element of publication of the written complaint is lacking in this case and merely because enquiry had been made by the Vigilance Department with regard to the allegations made against him would not, in any manner, attract the provisions of Section 500 I.P.C. The trial Magistrate also took into account the fact that civil and criminal litigation was also pending between the pa
