Balwant Singh vs Balwinder Kaur

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

Balwant Singh has filed this petition on invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaint Annexure P/1 filed by the respondent under Sections 499, 500, Indian Penal Code pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ropar and summoning order Annexure P/4.

Brief resume of the relevant facts figuring in the complaint are that Balwinder Kaur respondent was married with the petitioner on 7.12.1986 at Mohali and at the time of marriage dowry articles of the value of Rs. 1,10,000/ were give by her parents which consisted of gold ornaments, costly clothes and other customary goods. The parties thereafter lived as husband and wife at Mohali but from the very beginning the petitioner harassed and tortured the respondent and demanded more dowry articles. Father of the respondent gave Rs. 43,100/ more to the petitioner so that he may not harass the respondent. The petitioner was never satisfied and he threatened to kill and defame the respondent in case she did not meet his demands. In the year 1989 and 1990 he wrote various letters in English and Punjabi and sent copies to the respondent and her relatives levelling defamatory allegations with regard to her act and conduct. In those letters he called her a wagabond and characterless woman and also imputed that she had developed intimacy with one Anil Kumar. All these false allegations were made with an intention to defame her in the eyes of her near relatives, parents and the society at large. As a result of these allegations her reputation was harmed and lowered in the estimation of others.

The trial Court recorded preliminary evidence and found that a prima facie case under Section 500 of Indian Penal Code was made out against the petitioner. Vide order dated November 6, 1991 copy of which is Annexure P/4 the petitioner was summoned to face trial for that offence.

The petitioner alleged that he had not done anything either by words spoken or by publication of any imputation at any time to harm the reputation of the respondent. His marriage with the respondent had been dissolved and there was no reason for him to defame her. In fact he had submitted a mercy petition to the Home Secretary on 18.1.1992 wherein he had stated that there was danger to his life and to his children and had requested the authorities to take necessary steps in this regard. The respondent filed the complainant as a counter blast to the petition.

In the return filed by the respondent the allegations made in the petition were denied.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

The learned counsel for the petitioner simply contended that the allegations made in the complaint were false and the complaint was filed as a counter blast to one petition submitted by the petitioner to the Home Secretary copy of which was Annexure P/3. It was not contended that the allegations made in the complaint primafacie did not constitute the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner. There are specific assertions in the complaint that the petitioner wrote letters and sent photostat copies thereof to the relatives of the respondent making defamatory imputations. As a result of those wild allegations pertaining to the character of the respondent her reputation was lowered in the eyes of her relatives, friends and general public at large. Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code empowered this Court to exercise inherit powers to prevent abuse of the process of the Court but these powers can be exercised only where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious and oppressive. The trial court after recording preliminary evidence found that a primafacie case was made out against the petitioner to stand trial for an offence under Section 500 of Indian Penal Code. Meticulous analysis of the case to find out if it would end in conviction was not necessary. The mere fact that the petitioner submitted some application to the Home Secretary and this complaint was filed thereafter is no ground to quash the same when the defamatory imputations were alleged to have been made by the petitioner in writing and were circulated to various persons. The petitioner may urge by way of defence that the complainant was a counterblast, but that is not a ground for quashing. The petition is bereft of merit and the same is dismissed.