ORDER

This application has been filed by the applicant under Section 378 (4) of Cr.P.C. seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 22.02.2022 passed by the 1st Additional Session Judge, Maihar, District Satna in ST No. 14of 2018 whereby the respondent has been acquitted of the charge under Section 211 & 500 of IPC.

2. It is contended by the counsel for the applicant that the present respondent had filed a complaint against the applicant under Section 211 & 500 Signature Not Verified of IPC. It is contended by the counsel that in the complaint it was specifically averred by the respondent that on 29/09/2015 she made a complaint to Inspector General of Police, Rewa in which it was stated by her that the present applicant on 30/06/1994 had set his wife late Smt. Sushila Devi on fire, as a result of which, she sustained burn injuries and was done to death. However, the present applicant projected the said incident to be an accident and without being autopsy of the dead body, deceased was cremated.

3. The said complaint was inquired into by the Sub Divisional Officer, Police Maihar who gave a report that the allegations were baseless and it was purely an accident as a result of which the wife of the applicant had expired and even before her death she had given a Dying Declaration also in which she had not leveled any kind of allegations. Thus, it is contended by the counsel that as after the report by Sub Divisional Officer, Maihar it was evident that the allegations levelled by the respondent were baseless. The Court after conclusion of trial had acquitted the respondent by the impugned order. The trial Court has not considered the aspect that in the present case ingredients of Section 500 of IPC were fulfilled inasmuch as the reputation/esteem of the applicant was lower down on account of the complaint lodged by the respondent with the Inspector General of Police.

4. It is also contended by the counsel that on the basis of the report as the police visited his house, irreparable harm was caused to his reputation and the said fact was also taken note of by the persons living in the vicinity and thereby an offence of defamation was committed. Learned counsel while taking this Court to the testimonies of the witnesses (PW-2) Arun Kumar Pathak and (PW-3) Dhanesh Tiwari submit that the trial Court grossly erred in dismissing Signature Not Verified the application. It is contended by the counsel that the respondent had filed a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. before this Court vide M.Cr.C. No.4774/2017 seeking quashment of the proceedings on the ground that as the complaint before the Inspector General of Police, Rewa was made in good faith, there could not have been any prosecution. However, this Court dismissed the same filed by the respondent, therefore, as the petition was already dismissed, on the same ground the complaint could not have been set aside nor the accused could have been acquitted.

5. Heard the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant and perused the record.

6 . A perusal of the record reflects that the aforesaid complaint was filed in which the allegations were levelled that on account of a false complaint made by the respondent regarding an incident dated 30/06/1994, loss as well as harm to the reputation of applicant was caused and thereby an offence under Section 211 and 500 of IPC was committed by the respondent. The Court while dealing with the entire testimonies and material available on record, concluded in paragraph 19 that the imputation levelled against the present applicant was not published and SDO, Maihar while conducting inquiry did not record the statement of any person nor any other person was aware about such complaint.

7. It is further evident from the perusal of paragraph 21 and 22 that the respondent was daughter in law of the present applicant and her marriage was solemnized in the year 2012 and she had made a complaint regarding past incident of the year 1994. The Court