SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(P&H) 1150

2007(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1935
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.S. Saron
Criminal Misc. Nos.30586-87 of 2007 and Criminal Misc. No.38392-M of 2006
Rekha Sethi
v.
Deepak Chadha
{Decided on 16/05/2007}

Advocates:
For the Petitioners:Mr. S.S. Bains, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Sandeep K. Wadhawan, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
Defamation—Publication of offending news item—Hearsay evidence—Complaint quashed.

Headnote:(A) Penal Code, 1860, Sections 499, 500—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482—Defamation—Publication of offending news item—Hearsay evidence—Quashing of complaint—No material placed on record to show that the petitioners were instrumental in the publication of the news items—Only assertion that the offending news items were published at the instance of petitioner no.I—Evidence is in the nature of hearsay evidence—Matrimonial dispute between the parties which has culminated in the decree of divorce—Complaint and summoning order qua petitioners quashed. (Para 9)

       (B) Evidence Act, 1872, Section 41—Judgment in rem is conclusive against the world as to the status--Judgment of—Matrimonial Court can be taken as conclusive proof. (Para 8)

       

JUDGMENT

S.S. Saron, J. (Oral):-

Cr.M. No.30586-87/2007:

Notice of the criminal miscellaneous to counsel for the non-applicant.

Mr. Sandeep K. Wadhawan, Advocate for the respondent accepts notice.

2. Copies of the news items dated 30.5.2000 (Annexure-P.7) published in the Dainik Tribune and dated 7.6.2003 (Annexure-P.8) published in the Dainik Bhaskar attached with the criminal miscellaneous application are taken on record.

The criminal miscellaneous stand disposed of.

Cr.M. No.38392-M/2006:

3. The petitioners, Rekha Sethi and her father H.L. Sethi, mother Uma Sethi and brother Rakesh Sethi have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (‘Cr.P.C.’ - for short) for quashing the complaint dated 26.9.2000 (Annexure-P.1) titled Deepak Chadha v. Rekha Sethi and others pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh and the summoning order dated 25.3.2005 (Annexure-P.2) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh and all proceedings arising out of the said complaint. The petitioners have been summoned in pursuance of the impugned order dated 25.3.2005 (Annexure-P.2) for the offences under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ – for short).

4. Rekha Sethi (petitioner No.1) was married to the complainant Deepak Chadha (respondent) on 18.2.1999. During their marriage a matrimonial dispute arose between them. The petitioner Rekha Sethi on 24.10.2000 filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘Act’ – for short) for the grant of a decree for divorce on the ground that the complainant (respondent) after the solemnization of his marriage with the petitioner Rekha Sethi had voluntary sexual intercourse with respondent No.2 in the petition for divorce. The dissolution of the marriage was sought on the ground of adultery. The learned District Judge after considering the evidence and material on record accepted the petition of Rekha Sethi vide order dated 11.9.2002 (Annexure-P.3) and the marriage between the petitioner Rekha Sethi and the complainant Deepak Chadha was dissolved by a decree of divorce. Aggrieved against the said order the complainant (respondent) filed an appeal i.e. FAO No.250-M of 2002 in this Court. A Division Bench of this Court after notice of motion and hearing counsel for the parties dismissed the appeal on 11.3.2003 (Annexure-P.4). Consequently the marriage between the petitioner Rekha Sethi and the complainant Deepak Chadha stands dissolved. Before the passing of the said judgment and decree dissolving the marriage, the respondent Deepak Chadha had filed a complaint dated 26.9.2000 (Annexure-P.1) for summoning and convicting the petitioners and others for having committed an offence of defamation punishable under Section 500 IPC. It has been alleged in the complaint (Annexure-P.1) that the complainant was legally married with Rekha Sethi (accused No.1) on 18.2.1999 at Ludhiana and accused No.2 to 4 in the said complaint (Annexure-P.1) are the father, mother and brother respectively of Rekha Sethi (accused No.1). Accused No.5 and 6 are the maternal uncle and aunt of accused No.1. Accused No.7 to 11 are the editors, publishers and correspondents of Dainik Tribune and Dainik Bhaskar newspapers. It is alleged that on 27.5.2000 when the complainant had gone out of station for business purposes, in his absence with the connivance of Rekha Sethi (accused No.1), accused No.2 to 6 took forcible possession of the house of the complainant and also threatened his mother for not taking any legal action against accused No.1 to 6. Accused No.1 to 6 on 29.5.2000 lodged false complaint which has been registered by way of DDR No.37 dated 29.5.2000 against the complainant Deepak Chadha only to harass and pressurize him. Moreover, accused No.1 to 6 also had badly beaten the mother of the complainant and locked her in a room. Apart from other allegations made in the complaint it has been alleged that accused No.1 to 6 in connivanc








Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top