Dev Raj Vinayak vs State of Haryana and Others

Ritu Bahri, J.—This petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is for issuance of directions to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhri to proceed with the complaint dated 06.05.2003 (Annexure P-1), filed by the petitioner under Sections 499/500 IPC. Vide order dated 17.01.2009 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, the revision filed by the petitioner against the order dated 06.10.2007, passed by the trial Court, discharging the accused-respondent Nos. 2 to 4, has been dismissed.

Dev Raj-complainant (petitioner) filed a complaint under Sections 499/500 IPC against Gulshan Vinayak, Atul Bansal, Puran Chand, Harish Kohli, proprietor of Liberty Printers, alleging that they entered into a criminal conspiracy and published defamatory articles in their newspaper by using derogatory and defamatory language against him, thereby lowered down his reputation in the eyes of public. Therefore, he suffered heavy damage. Vide order dated 09.05.2003, passed by the Ilaqa Magistrate, the said complaint was sent to the S.H.O. Police Station City, Yamuna Nagar, for investigation u/s 155(2) Cr.P.C. Consequently, FIR No. 449 dated 24.08.2003, under Sections 499/500 IPC was registered against the accused persons and challan u/s 173 Cr.P.C., was presented accordingly.

The accused-respondent Nos. 2 to 4 appeared before the Court and filed an application for their discharge. The trial Court, vide order dated 06.10.2007, discharged all the accused on the ground that there was a bar against taking cognizance of the offences u/s 499/500 IPC by the police. The revision, filed by the petitioner, was also dismissed on the ground that an order of discharge, as per Section 255 Cr.P.C., would amount to acquittal. The remedy available to the petitioner was to file an appeal against the order of acquittal u/s 378 Cr.P.C.

A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Mander Singh and Others Vs. Ladi, has held that an order of discharge in summons case amount to acquittal within the meaning of Section 255 Cr.P.C. Revision against the said order is not maintainable before the Sessions Judge, rather an appeal is maintainable before the High Court.

Having examined the impugned orders in the light of the aforesaid judgment, no illegality, much less perversity, has been found therein, warranting interference by this Court. Dismissed.