Barjinder Singh Hamdard vs Mohinder Singh

R.L. Anand, J.

Present is a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C., for the quashment of complaint dated 3rd April, 1996 (Annexure P.1), summoning order dated 8th April, 1996 (Annexure P.2) and the chargesheet dated 13th September, 1996 (Annexure P.4).

Before I proceed further, I may state that the offending article dated 13th July, 1995, published in the daily Ajit, the translation of which can be done as follows, has been placed on record :

"FIVE COWS DIED BY PURE GHEE PEDAS

NURPUR BEDI : July 12 (PP) at Dera Bhaniaranwali situated nearby, five stray cows have died after consuming poisonous ghee/sweet meat (pedas). It has been reported that a tin of ghee which was donated by someone, contained a dead rat. The disciples at the Dera saw the dead rat in the tin of ghee and told Sant Baba about it. The said Baba asked his disciples to mix it with flour and give the pedas to the cows. Upon consuming the pedas, five cows died after some time."

The complaint was filed by Shri Mohinder Singh against Shri Barjinder Singh Hamdard, Chief Editor, daily Ajit Newspaper, Jalandhar, in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar, and in para No. 7 of the complaint it has been alleged by the complainant as follows :

"That the public in general knew this fact that Sant Piara Singh, Dera Baba Bhaniaranwali is the religious Guru of the complainant and the people had started taunting the complainant that his Guru is not religious and he had killed five cows by giving some poison in the pedas, which had lowered the reputation of the Dera in the eyes of the public and had also affected the reputation of the complainant in the eyes of the relatives and friends and the persons known to him."

In support of his complaint, the complainant (Shri Mohinder Singh) appeared before the learned Magistrate, who passed the following order on 8th April, 1996 :

"Heard. Complaint allegations for an offence punishable under Section 500 IPC against respondent Barjinder Singh stands duly supported on record from the testimony of PW Ram Kishan, PW.2 Mohinder Singh son of Dial Singh and PW.3 Mohinder Singh son of Ramji Dass as well as news dated 12.7.1995 published in Daily Ajit, Jalandhar. Ex.P.1 to P.5 copies of writings made by the members as well as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of village Dhamara. As such, on the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence and the law laid down through an authority Surjan Singh and others v. Darshan Lal and others, 1991(2) RCR (P&H) 63, Court is satisfied that there is sufficient grounds to proceed against said respondent for an offence punishable under Section 500 IPC. Consequently, said Barjinder Singh Hamdard, respondent is directed to be summoned as an accused person in this case to face his judicial trial for an offence punishable under Section 500 IPC for 24.5.1996 on furnishing PF/list of reliance and copy of complaint for the said date."

The petitioner filed an application under Section 245, Cr.P.C. dated Ist June 1996. Said application was dismissed and vide order dated 13th September, 1996, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar, framed a charge under Section 500, Indian Penal Code, against petitioner Shri Barjinder Singh. Aggrieved by the complaint, summoning order and the chargesheet, present petition under section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed, which has been opposed by the respondent mainly on the grounds that this Court in the proceedings under Section 482, Cr.P.C. cannot quash the complaint and the summoning order, especially when the charge has already been framed against the petitioner, who has equally efficacious remedy of filing a revision against the charge. Learned counsel for the respondent has also submitted that there ws full justification on the part of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for summoning the petitioner as there was a prima facie case against him. The respondent was a disciple of the Dera known as Bhaniaranwali Dera, of which Sant Piara Singh was the manager. The petitioner being the worshipper of that Dera had the locus standi to file the complaint, being an aggrieved person.

This petition I am disposing of with the assistance rendered by Sarvshri G.S. Grewal, Senior Advocate, who appeared on behalf of the petitioner, and Baljinder Sigh, Advocate, who has but in appearance on behalf of the respondent.

There is no dispute with the proposition of law that the proceedings under Section 482, Cr.P.C. are extraordinary in nature and the powers of this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C., should be invoked in rarest of the rare cases. This dictum has been given by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case reported as State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604. Also it is the well settled law that when equally efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner, he cannot come under the provisions of Section 482, Cr.P.C. Considering all the case law against the petitioner, still this Court is of the considered view that the present petition is likely to succeed as there is an inherent lacuna in the complaint itself of which the trial Court did not take due notice.

Present petition has not been filed by Sant Piara Singh nor it has been filed on behalf of the dera. the complainant Shri Mohinder Singh only alleges that he is a worshipper or visitor of the Dera. If the contents of the offending article are read in detail, it can be said that the defamation, if any, was visavis Sant Piara Singh or the Dera. The complainant in this case was not an aggrieved person and had no locus standi to file the complaint against the petitioner. When the complaint was inherently bad, the criminal Court could not take cognizance over the matter in view of the provisions of Section 199 Cr.P.C., which runs as follows :

"Prosecution for defamation. (1) No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence.

xx xx xx xx xx xx"

The petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C., is maintainable, as even held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal (supra). The person ''aggrieved'' as mentioned in Section 199, Cr.P.C., has been interpreted in G. Narasimhan and others v. T.V. Chokkappa, AIR 1972 SC 2609, as guidelines laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court can be quoted as follows :

"Section 198 lays down an exception to the general rule that a complaint can be filed by anybody whether he is an aggrieved person or not, and modifies that rule by permitting only an aggrieved person to move a magistrate in cases of defamation. The section is mandatory, so that if a magistrate were to take cognizance of the offence of defamation on a complaint filed by one who is not an aggrieved person, the trial and conviction would be void and illegal."

In the light of these guidelines, it can be stated without any difficulty that the complaint filed by Shri Mohinder Singh respondent was not maintainable and the criminal Court could not even take cognizance over the matter.

Faced with this difficulty, learned counsel for the respondent relied upon an authority reported as Shri Suresh Oberoi, Film Actor and another v. Dev Singh Assur, 1991(2) RCR 61. The facts of the cited case are totally distinguishable. In the said case Lord Balmiki was allegedly defamed by the accused and the complaint was filed by one Dev Singh Assur. The cited judgment would show that in this case the religious feelings of a particular community (Balimki Community) were hurt by the accused when he addressed Sant Balmiki as a Daku (dacoit). In the present case the feelings of a community are not intended to be hurt. The news item was that five cows had allegedly died in the village by taking some poisonous substance. In these circumstances if there was any incriminating intent on the part of the petitioner, it could be attributed either to the Dera itself or to its manager. By no stretch of imagination it can be said that the religious sentiments of the respondentcomplainant were ever intended to be hurt by the petitioner. The respondent is not an aggrieved person within the meaning of Section 199, Cr.P.C., and as such he had no locus standi to file the complaint.

Resultantly, all the proceedings taken in consequence of the complaint, the summoning order and the chargesheet are quashed, and the petition is hereby allowed.