Ashok Kumar vs State of H.P. and Others

Surjit Singh, J.—Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 20.05.2009 of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), whereby his revision petition, challenging the order dated 11.09.2007 of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, by which he has been summoned as an accused, in a complaint, u/s 500 of the Indian Penal Code, instituted by Respondent Dinesh Chander Sharma, has been dismissed, with the direction to trial Magistrate to consider framing of charge, if warranted by the record, after hearing him.

Respondent filed a complaint, u/s 500 of the Indian Penal Code against the Petitioner and D.C. Office Employees Union, through its President, alleging that they had addressed a defamatory letter to the President, Bar Association, Una, of which the Respondent is a member.

In the letters, it was alleged that the Respondent had manhandled a Peon of the Deputy Commissioner, about which a case, under Sections 332 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code, had been registered against him and, therefore, suitable action be taken against him.

Respondent appeared as his own witness and also examined a few other witnesses. Learned Judicial Magistrate passed an order, summoning the President of the aforesaid Employees'' Association as also the present Petitioner, who had signed the letter addressed to the President of the Bar Association, in the capacity of President of the Employees'' Association. Both the accused were then read out the substance of accusation.

Revision petition was filed by the present Petitioner as also the person, who was the President of Employees'' Association, at the time of the passing of the summoning order, namely Vinod Kumar. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide impugned order, accepted the revision petition, so far as it pertained to the summoning order qua Vinod Kumar, because letter, containing the alleged defamatory statement, was not signed by him. He was the President of the Employees'' Association, when the order for summoning the accused was passed. The present Petitioner was the President of the Association, at the time when the letter was sent and he had signed the same Petitioner''s prayer for setting aside the summoning order was rejected, with the observation that it was he who had signed the letter addressed to the President of th Bar Association.

I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner as also the Respondent, who is present in person, and gone through the record.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the case of the Petitioner is covered by Exceptions, Eighth, Ninth and Tenth to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. Whether a case falls under any of the Exceptions to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code or not is to be considered during the course of trial and not at the stage of summoning an accused. Accused has to prove his defence or that his case falls under any of the Exceptions, u/s 105 of the Evidence Act and that can be done only during the course of trial or the stage of putting substance of accusation. Hence, the present petition is dismissed, being without merit.

Respondent, who is present in person, says that the substance of accusation put to the Petitioner is defective. He may bring this fact to the notice of the trial Magistrate and request him for amending the same.

Petition stands disposed of. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of, having become infructuous.