The main legal point established is that a complaint alleging defamation must provide specific details and material particulars of the alleged incidents, and the prosecution should not be initiated as an abuse of the court's process.

JUDGMENT :

Saumitra Dayal Singh, J.

1. Both 482 Applications have been filed to quash Complaint Case No. 1254 of 2010, Narendra Kumar Saraswat Vs. Anand Prakash & Ors., complaining of offence under Section 500 IPC, P.S. Nawabganj, District Kanpur Nagar, which is stated to be pending in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (IX), Kanpur Nagar, and the order dated 26.3.2011 passed therein.

2. The applicants in 482 Application No. 26918 of 2011, are Anand Prakash, Smt. Meeta Sharma, Smt. Shyam Lata Sharma, Kartik Sharma, Gyan Prakash Sharma and Gaurav Sharma. The applicant in 482 Application No. 27505 of 2012 is Lokesh Sharma (all applicants in the two applications are hereinafter collectively referred to as the applicants-accused). Smt. Meeta Sharma-applicant no. 2 in 482 Application No. 26918 of 2011 was married to the son of opposite party no. 2, namely Puneet Saraswat. The other applicants in both 482 applications are the family members and relatives of the said Smt. Meeta Sharma. The complaint filed by Opposite Party No. 2 - Narendra Kumar Saraswat (hereinafter referred to as the 'complainant'), discloses that his son Puneet Saraswat was married to one of the applicants, Smt. Meeta Sharma on 15.02.2009. That matrimonial alliance had arisen upon the parties having met through a matrimonial website.

3. The complaint then discloses, acrimony had arisen between the parties, allegedly on account of deceitful conduct of the said Smt. Meeta Sharma.

4. Then, it has been alleged that the applicants-accused persons, who were residents of Delhi, called the complainant and his son to Delhi to settle their differences, amicably. Though no date, other particulars of occurrence etc. have been disclosed, the complaint further alleges, Anand Prakash Sharma exercised undue pressure on the complainant but, he did not succumb to the same. The said Anand Prakash Sharma then assaulted the complainant's son and his wife and thus injured them. Further, it was alleged, a false police case was lodged against the complainant and his family members and they were unnecessarily got arrested by the police. In the assault thus caused, a fracture injury was also claimed to have been suffered by the complaint's son Puneet Saraswat.

5. Again, without disclosing any details as to the date and time of the occurrence, it was alleged that the complainant and his family members were handcuffed by the police authorities and that they were photographed at the instance of the applicant-accused Anand Prakash Sharma.

6. Proceeding further, the complaint alleges that the photographs of the complainant's son Puneet Saraswat (in handcuffs), were communicated by "Abhiyuktgan" to the superior officers of Puneet Saraswat, whereupon the latter was transferred from Delhi to Kolkata. The complaint also alleges, such photographs were also distributed in the locality/'Mohallay', where the complainant resides and that such photographs were distributed amongst relatives of the complainant, by the accused persons Gaurav Sharma and Baby Sharma.

7. Also, it was alleged, the accused person Smt. Meeta Sharma made derogatory and obscene comments to an unnamed reporter of "India TV" alleging illicit relationship between the complainant's son Puneet Saraswat and his mother. However, it was further stated that such report was never broadcast, though, audio recording of the same was claimed to be available with the complainant. Another allegation has been made in the complaint of the accused person Anand Prakash Sharma alongwith Lokesh Sharma and Gyan Prakash Sharma, having colluded with another unnamed news reporter of a Daily 'Sandhya Gangaputra Times" published from Haryana, who sought a telephonic interview with the complainant, wherein he put various obscene and derogatory questions to the complainant. Resulting news items were also alleged to have been published. However, the date and other details of the questions put to the complainant and the publication have not been disclo