IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. Appeal No. 196 of 2014

Reserved on: 15.12.2025

Date of Decision: 01.01.2026

Kuldip Kumar ..Appellant

Versus o

Subhash Chand & others ...Respondent

Coram

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

For the Appellant : Mr Onkar Jairath, Advocate.

For the Respondents : Mr Dheeraj K Vashisht, Advocate.

R

akesh Kainthla, Judge

The present appeal is directed against the judgment

dated 31.05.2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. II, Amb, District Una, H.P. (learned Trial Court ) vide which, the respondents (accused before learned Trial Court) were acquitted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed

before the learned Trial Court for convenience.

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the complainant filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 500 of the IPC. It was asserted that the complainant was posted as a constable in the Himachal Pradesh Police. Mulak Raj filed an appflication against accused accused Ram Kishan before Station House Officer (SHO) Amb, District Una, H.P. The SHO ditrected the complainant to bring the parties to the Police Station. The complainant went to Village Nakroh and told Ram Kishan that he was called in connection with the application filed by Mulak Raj. Accused No.1 and 2 abused that the complainant and they caught hold of him by his neck. The complainant told the accused that he would take legal action against them. The accused apologised in writing. Accused Ram Kishan, accused No.1 (since deceased) and Subash Chand, accused No.2, filed false complaints against the complainant before Deputy Superintendent of Police (Dy.S.P.), Amb, District Una, H.P., alleging that the complainant had snatched ₹ 2,000/- from them. Dy. S.P. transferred the complainant to Police Lines Una, conducted an inquiry and found the complaint of the accused to be false. Accused No. 3 to 5 published false news in Punjab Kesari and Divya Himachal, which lowered the estimation of the complainant in the public; hence, a complaint was filed against the accused for taking action as per law.

3. Learned Trial Court recordedH the preliminary evidence and found sufficient reason to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, notice of accusation was put to them for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 500 of the IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. Theo complainant examined HHC Sada Shiv (CW-1), himself (CCW-2) and Neelam Sharma (CW-3) to prove his case.

5. The accused, in their statements recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., admitted that the complainant was posted as a constable in H.P. Police and that he was sent to call Ram Kishan for inquiry. They stated that a true complaint was filed against the complainant. The news item was authentic, and it was based upon the complaint made by accused No.1 and 2. They relied upon some documents in their defence.

6. Learned Trial Court held that the complainant had failed to examine any witness to corroborate his version. He relied upon entry (Ext.CW-1/A), in which it was mentioned that many people were present on the spot. No witness to the compromise was produced before the Court. Neelam Sharma admitted that Mulak Raj, at whose instance Ram Kishan was called, was her father-in-law, and she was an interested witness. A complaint made to a higher official does not amount to any defamation; therefore, the complaint wafs dismissed.

7. Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court, the complainant filed the present appeal, asserting that the learned Trial Court erred in appreciating the material on record. It was undispute