Dogar Singh and Another vs Shobha Gupta and Another

R.L. Anand, J.—Dogar Singh and Harjit Singh alias Mithu have filed the present petition u/s 482, Cr. P.C. against Smt. Shobha Gupta and the State of Punjab, and the same has been directed against the order dated 8th April, 1995 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, who set aside the order dated 7th May, 1993 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phagwara, when the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint of Smt. Shobha Gupta, respondent, u/s 504 read with Section 34, and Sections 500 and 120-B of the IPC.

Brief facts of the case are that two petitioners along with 41 others, including Shri Rakesh Kumar, submitted an application to the Deputy Commissioner, Kapurthala, alleging as follows :-

To The Deputy Commissioner, Distt. Kapurthala, Kapurthala.

Sub:-Amountthe malpractices in the Punjab Public School, Phagwara

Sir,

Most respectfully it is to bring to your kind notice the following facts for kind consideration and immediate action :-

(i) That the building of the aforesaid school is quite unsafe and it may bring about any disaster upon the students of this school at any time.

(ii) That the indiscipline among the students is to the unlimited extent and this has created a great problem for the nearby residents. Neither the school has any ground for proper accommodation.

(iii) That it appears that this school has become a meeting place for the both sexes and the Principle Mrs. Shobha Gupta is turning a deaf ear towards the character of the students.

(iv) That if these are not checked in time, they may become a great problem for the City.

So, keeping in view the above-mentioned facts, your attention and action is highly desired to rectify the problem.

Yours faithfully, Sd/- Rakesh Kumar and 42 others persons.

Dated 5-6-1990

Smt. Shobha Gupta felt that this complaint had been filed by the petitioners and others in order to defame her. She filed a criminal complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Classy Phagwara, against the present petitioners, i.e., Dogar Singh and Harjit Singh alias Mithu, and one Bant. It was alleged by her that she was Principal of the Punjab Public High School, Phagwara, and had been running the School in a very peaceful manner. The complainant and her school is well known for discipline, control, efficient working and good results and this institution is blessing for whole city of Phagwara. The three accused, i.e., Dogar Singh, Harjit Singh and Bant, aforesaid, are residing in the neighbourhood of the complainant. On 5-6-1990 these three accused in connivance with other persons maliciously with their common intention filed a complaint before the Deputy Commissioner, Kapurthala openly accusing the complainant and her school. In that school the accused clearly stated that the school run by the complainant has become a meeting place for both the sexes and the Principal Mrs. Shobha Gupta is turning deaf ear towards the character of the students. It has also been stated in the complaint that the building of the school is quite unsafe and it can bring disastrous results besides indiscipline amongst the students. The Deputy Commissioner sent the complaint to the S.D.M. Phagwara, to inquire into the matter, who called both the parties. The S.D.M. himself inspected the school and its building and found no justification in the complaint. The complaint which was moved by the petitioners and others was ultimately dismissed, treating it as false and bogus, and report in this respect was sent to the Deputy Commissioner, Kapurthala. It has been alleged by the complainant that the defamatory application moved by the petitioner was without any proof and it has been moved with malicious intention in order to harm the complainant and her reputation, besides her business and also in order to cause her mental agony. The accused had the knowledge that this complaint would pass from many hands and would spread in the general public and stongly harm the complainant in many ways. The accused succeeded in'' their nefarious designs to defame the complainant and with the result of this complaint many students and one science master left the school of the complainant. The people refused to admit the children in the school and as a result of that the complainant received a set back. The building of the school has sufficient accommodation and is fit for use as a school building. The complainant Smt. Shobha Gupta also filed a safety certificate of the school building along with the complaint. It has been alleged by the complainant in her complaint dated 22-9-1990 that on 20-9-1990 the accused were asked to feel sorry for the defamatory allegations or the statement made in the complaint dated 5-6-1990 against the complainant, her reputation, school and business, but instead of showing regrets, the accused repeated the defamatory statement and hurled abuses upon the complainant in the presence of the witnesses. The complainant approached the local police and requested the Police to register a criminal case against the guilty persons, but to no effect. Hence the complaint.

The learned Magistrate recorded the pre-charge evidence and the accused were summoned u/s 500, IPC, but finally vide order dated 7th May, 1993, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint by stating that the evidence produced by the complainant was not of such a nature, if unrebutted, would lead to the conviction of the accused. Accordingly no case was made out against the accused for framing charge-sheet against them. Consequently, both the accused, i.e. Dogar Singh and Harjit Singh, were discharged. The reasons given by the learned Magistrate are contained in paras Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the order dated 7th May, 1993, which I reproduce as follows :-

Learned counsel for the complainant basing his arguments on the above stated evidence, has argued with stress that from the copy of complaint Ex. P. 2 submitted by the accused and others to the Deputy Commissioner, Kapurthala. It is apparent that false allegations were levelled against the complainant. Even the words used in this complaint are defamatory. It also stands proved that the accused and others had put their signatures on the complaint Ex. P. 2. The learned counsel has drawn my attention towards the complaint wherein it is mentioned that the school has become a meeting place for both the sexes and principal Shobha Gupta is turning a deaf ear towards the character of students. These words used in the complaint are quite defamatory. The reputation of the complainant has been lowered in the estimation of others. On account of this complaint, many teachers and students have left the school. In these circumstances, it has been argued that a prima facie case u/s 500, IPC for framing charge-sheet against the accused is made out and they be charge-sheeted accordingly.

I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the complainant but I am of the view that the same is devoid of any force. There are circumstances which warrant that benefit of doubt should be given to the accused. At the outset, it can be stated that at the time of framing charge-sheet against the accused, it is to be seen as to whether the evidence produced by the complainant is of such a nature which if unrebutted, would lead to conviction of the accused* In other words, foolproof evidence is required to base the conviction of, a person and only then he is to be charge-sheeted. However, the evidence of that type and nature has not been produced by the complainant. The following discussion bears testimony of this fact.

The important point worth consideration in this case is that the complaint is alleged to have been made on 5-6-1990, whereas, the present complaint was filed on 22-9-90 in the Court. Thus there is a delay of 3''/2 months in filing the complaint. In this respect the learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the S.D.M. Phagwara conducted an enquiry and submitted his report on 13-9-90, and thereafter the present complaint was filed, in other words, there is no delay in filing the present complaint.; In this respect it can be stated that the complainant has submitted in'' her cross-examination that Dogar accused had signed on the application in her presence. She further stated that whatever was being spoken by him was written in the application. In other words, the complainant came to know about the contents of the letter when it was allegedly written by the accused. It means that the complainant came to know about the defamatory words used in the complaint at that very time. The cause of action thus, accrued to the complainant at that very time when this complaint was written by the accused. The complaint is dated 5-6-90 and thus, there is a delay of about 3''/2 months in filing the present complaint. This delay has not been explained at all.

Another important point worth consideration is as to whether the words used in the complaint are defamatory in nature or not. As already stated above the complainant has mentioned in the complaint that the accused had alleged in Ex. P-2 that the school has become a meeting place for both the sexes and Principal Shobha Gupta is turning a deaf ear towards the character of students. In this respect, it is relevant to point out that in the complaint Ex. P-2 addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Kapurthala it is mentioned that "it appears that the school has become a meeting place for both the sexes and Shobha Gupta turning deaf ear towards the character of students." First of all, the complainant has not narrated the exact words used in Ex. P-2 in the present complaint filed against the accused. The perusal of this complaint Ex. P-2 shows that no definite or conclusive allegations have been levelled to the effect that this school has become a meeting place for both the sexes. The dictionary meaning of the word ''appear'' is ''seems''. In other words, this complaint Ex. P-2 which is signed by 30/40 persons of the locality and addressed to Deputy Commissioner, Kapurthala is of a general nature. Even the report Ex. P-3 of the S.D.M. Phagwara makes it clear that this complaint was made by Miss Kusam Sharma, General Secretary, Sangharash Samiti, Phagwara. In fact, this complaint was forwarded by Miss Kusam Sharma for conducting an enquiry. In this manner, the words used in the said complaint in my view are not defamatory in nature. The conduct of the complainant in this respect can also be better imagined than described because she has not mentioned word "appears" in the present complaint against the accused.

As already stated above, the complaint Ex. P-2 is signed by 30/40 persons but it is not understood as to why the complaint has been filed only against three accused. No reason whatsoever has been given by the complainant in this regard. On the other hand, it is the admitted case of the complainant that a litigation is already going on between the accused and the complainant. Even a criminal case has been registered against the accused at the instance of the complainant. Civil litigation is also pending between the parties, the relations between the accused and the complainant, who are neighbours, are quite strained. Filing of the present complaint against the accused only can also be said to be on account of these strained relations. There is, thus, every motive to file this complaint against the accused. The statement of the complainant does not fine corroboration from any other source. No other person has been got examined by the complainant to prove that the teachers and students had left the school on account of this complaint Ex. P-2, allegedly written by the accused and others. No person has also stated that the reputation of the complainant has been lowered in the estimation of others on account of such false letter/complaint. The S.D.M. who conducted an enquiry has also been got examined. No independent person has been produced to show that the complaint bears the signatures of the accused. It is only the complainant who had identified the signatures of Dogar Singh and Harjit Singh on this complaint Ex. P-2. No doubt Gulwant Rai, Clerk, has proved the report Ex. P-3 of S.D.O. (Civil) Phagwara, but he has stated that he did not work with the S.D.M. Phagwara. He has also submitted that the stamp under the signatures of S.D.M. is also not fixed.

In view of my above discussion, the evidence produced by the complainant is not of such a nature, if unrebutted, would lead to the conviction of the accused. Accordingly, no case is made out against the accused for framing charge-sheet against the accused. Both the accused, namely, Dogar Singh and Harjit Singh, are, therefore, discharged.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phagwara, Smt. Shobha Gupta filed revision in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, who vide order dated 11th April, 1995 reversed the order passed by the learned Magistrate and accepted the revision and the case was sent back to the trial Court for framing the charge u/s 500, I.P.C., against Dogar Singh and Harjit Singh, present petitioners. The reasons of re versa! given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are contained in paras Nos. 4,5,6 and 7 of the order, which I reproduce as follows:-

The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned trial Court erred in discarding the allegations on the ground that there was delay in filing the complaint and also holding that the allegations were not proved because of the previous litigation of the petitioner with the accused and also there was no corroboration the testimony of the petitioner. I have given my careful consideration to all these aspects by going through the judgment under revision. It was found by the Court that there was delay of more than three months. The effect of the delay has to be considered in the light of the circumstances of each and every case. This is not an injury case where could be the possibility of the fabrication of false version. It is alleged that false allegations in writing were levelled against the petitioner to the Deputy Commissioner. Enquiry was got held by the Deputy Commissioner wherein the petitioner could think it proper to initiate necessary action against her adversary. Therefore, the delay in this particular case was not material to effect the credibility of the versions of the complaint.

It was admitted by the complainant that the house of the respondent being in the neighbourhood of the school, they had been creating trouble and, therefore, complaints and counter-complaints were made to the police and a suit for permanent injunction was also pending. The enmity is double-edged weapon which can induce a party to legal false allegation against his opponent. It is the case of the complainant that because of her serious differences with the accused false and malicious complaint to undermine her prestige was made to the Deputy Commissioner. Again this circumstance could not be sufficient to disbelieve the complainant at the stage of framing charge.

Statement, was made by the complainant on oath. Copy of the complaint containing the imputations made against her was also got produced. In her cross-examination she stated that the complaint was written by the accused, in her presence which in my view may not be correct. The complaint bore the signatures of both the accused and so many other persons. After hearing the version of the accused, the Court could- reach some conclusion as to if the accused were the party to level these false allegations and that stage was yet to come. Enquiry was held by the S.D.M. Phagwara by whom the accused were summoned. Therefore, at this stage the Court could not say that the complaint was not proved. The statement of the complaint could be quite sufficient keeping in view the allegations in writing contained in the complaint, copy of which is Ex. P-2. It was also observed by the learned Court that the case was not free from doubt. At the pre-charge stage the complainant is not supposed to produce entire evidence and on the ground of mere doubt the complaint could not be dismissed.

It was also urged by the learned counsel for the respondent that there was no evidence if the reputation of the petitioner has suffered in any way as there was no other witness to depose in this respect Definition of defamation as contained in Section 499, I.P.C. is.-

Whoever by words either spoken or intended to be read or by signs or by visible representations, concerning any person intending to harm or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation makes or publishes any imputation will harm person intending to harm or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of such person is said except in the cases hereinafter excepted to defame that person.

The complainant is required only to establish that false and malicious allegations were made against her with the intention or having reason to believe that by those allegations her reputation was likely to suffer. In the instant case the allegations were that the school had become meeting place for the opposite sexes. By imputation we mean accusation or something more than an expression of suspicion. Sometime a more suspicion may have the same effect on the mind of a person to whom the suspicion is communicated as an accused would have. In this case it is argued that the school had become a meeting place for both the sexes and the principal was turning a deaf ear towards the character of the students. The learned counsel wants the words ''appears'' to be interpreted as just a suspicion and not positive allegations. I do not find any merit in this submission. The allegations were very definite and as discussed above even allegations made on the mind of the person to whom the same are communicated as is the impression carried by the accused. In the light of all these reasons I am of the view that the learned trial Court/Magistrate erred in holding that no case against the accused was made out which if unrebutted would warrant their conviction. Rather on the basis, of the evidence on record and as per reasons given above there is ground for presuming that the accused committed an offence u/s 500, I.P.C. and the case was fit to charge them under the section. Therefore, the revision petition is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the case is sent back to the trial Court for framing charge u/s 500, I.P.C. against both the respondents and then further proceeding with the trial.

This time Dogar Singh and Harjit Singh are not satisfied with the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, and they have filed the present petition u/s 482, Cr. P. C, which I am disposing of with the assistance rendered by Shri M. S. Dhillon, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner; Shri A. S. Kalra, Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1; and Shri J. S. Brar, D.A.G. Punjab, appearing on behalf of the State respondent No. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge on the ground that the action on their part was nothing else, but a justified exposture of the activities of respondent No. 1, and the application filed by the petitioners and others was nothing but an act of good faith and in these circumstances the case of the petitioners is covered under Third Exception of Section 499, Indian Penal Code. Learned Additional Sessions Judge committed a patent illegality in asking the trial Court to frame a charge when prima facie no offence was ever committed by the petitioners as remarked and held by the trial Magistrate. It was then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that at the most it was a case of civil wrong giving a civil cause of action to the complainant, but no criminal liability is made out qua the petitioners. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Smt. Shobha Gupta had adopted the policy of pick and choose when she opted to file the complaint against the petitioners-and Bant and she has not cared to file the complaint against other signatories of the application. Such a complaint has been filed with a mala fide intention on the part of Smt. Shobha Gupta and, therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.

Shri A. S. Kalra, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the contesting respondent Smt. Shobha Gupta submitted that it has been admitted by the petitioners that they were signatories of the complaint filed before the Deputy Commissioner, Kapurthala. This complaint was nothing but a mala fide act on the part of the petitioners, who were out and out to harm the interests of Smt. Shobha Gupta and they adopted the crude and uncharitable act by filing wrong and frivolous complaint, incorporating unwarranted imputations, which are totally defamatory in character. Prima facie both the petitioners had committed the offence. The cause of action qua the complainant was joint and several and her complaint could not be dismissed on the ground that the complainant had filed the complaint against only three persons. It was also submitted on behalf of Smt. Shobha Gupta that the petitioners had not acted in a bona fide manner and their action cannot be held having been performed under good faith. The reasons advanced by the revisional Court are cogent and convincing and since there is no patent illegality in the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, this Court will be slow in interfering in the said order and will not feel the hesitation in dismissing the revision.

Shri J. S. Brar, learned Deputy-Advocate General, Punjab, appearing on behalf of the State, adopted a neutral role because of the fact that the dispute was primarily between the petitioners and respondent No. 1. Section 499 of the I.P.C. lays down that whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representation, makes or published any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person is said to defame that person. According to Exception No. 3 of Section 499, I.P.C., it will not be a defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of any person touching any public question, and respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further.

Now it is to be seen whether the offending-words used in the letter admittedly written by the petitioners and others will constitute adefamation, as per the provisions of Section 499, I.P.C., and whether the case of the petitioners is covered under Exception No. 3 added to Section 499, I.P.C. or not? In order to attract the provisions of Section 499, I.P.C, there must be making or publication of an imputation concerning any person with the intention to harm the imputation of such person or with knowledge or proof that such imputation would harm the reputation of such person. In other words, in order to bring the defamatory statement within the ambit of Section 499, I.P.C, there must be an imputation. The perusal of the language of Section 499, I.P.C, indicates that to bring home a Charge under this Section any ill-will or malice on the part of the accused is not required to be proved The person who wants to take the benefit of the exception has to prove that he lodged the application/complaint in good faith and as a matter of fact he made an inquiry before making the imputation and he has reasons to indicate that he acted with due care and attention and was satisfied as to the truth of the imputation. The question whether the accused acted in good faith, would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case - the nature of the imputation made, the circumstances under which it was made, the status of the person making the imputation, the existence or otherwise of malice in his mind when he made the imputation and whether he acted with due care and attention and was satisfied as to the truth of the imputation or the relevant considerations in deciding the question: "Good faith" has been denied u/s 52, I.P.C. and it lays down as follows :--

Nothing is said to be done or believed in "good faith" which is done or believed without due care and attention.

In interpreting the words "good faith" the Court has to rely upon the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and inquire whether the accused acted with due care and attention. A writer cannot claim to have acted in good faith when he ignored the source of the truth opened to .him. Good faith as understood in civil law is different from good faith in criminal law. This Court feels that there is no general standard of care and attention applicable to all. Whether a particular act has been done with due care and attention, will'' depend upon the facts and circumstances of a particular case.

In the light of the above interpretation to the provisions of Sections 499 and 52 of the Indian Penal Code, it has now to be seen whether the complaint filed by Shri Dogar Singh and Harjit Singh and others before the Deputy Commissioner was an act towards justified exposture of the conduct of Smt. Shobha Gupta and whether the petitioners took the action in good faith or that the application was moved by the petitioners and others simply in order to malign Smt. Shobha Gupta and her institution. No doubt, this Court will not ordinarily look behind the circumstances which might have motivated the present petitioners and others, who lodged the complaint against Smt. Shobha Gupta before the Deputy Commissioner, yet in this case certain facts have come on surface, which would establish that by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the action on the part of the present petitioners was ever intended in good faith or they wanted to expose the alleged conduct of Smt. Shobha Gupta. Referring to the application dated 5th June, 1990 (Annexure P-1), it would show that the present petitioners along with Rakesh and others were bent upon causing uncalled for harm to respondent No. 1. In para No. 1 of the application it was alleged that the building of the school was quite unsafe and it could bring about any disaster upon the students of the school at any time. There was no basis for the applicants to say that the building of the school was unsafe and unfit for human habitation and that the activities of the school had become dangerous due to the unsafe condition of the building. It is not prima facie established on the record that any local authority, such as Municipal Committee, Phagwara, or Improvement Trust, Phagwara, or any other authority had served a notice upon respondent No. 1 bringing to her notice that the building of the school had become unsafe or any portion of the building had become unfit for human habitation. There was hardly any basis, for the petitioners to make a sweeping allegation that the building of the school was unsafe and unfit for human habitation or that the building can bring disastrous results to the students of the school at any time. In para No. 2 of the complaint it has been alleged that indiscipline among the students had gone to the limited extent and it had created a great problem to the nearby residents. The school had no ground for proper accommodation. This para is very material to me because I have been able to gather the intentions of the petitioners in moving the complaint before the Deputy Commissioner. It appears to me that the petitioners wanted that the activities of the school should go somewhere else because, of the natural noise, which would be created by the children when they will be busy in play. If the activities of the school had become a source of nuisance to the neighbourers, the recognised mode is something else. They could give the application to the authorities with the request that the management of the school may be persuaded upon to shift the institution to some other place. The authorities may look into that complaint. But to defame an institution, muchless its Manager/Principal in a contemptuous manner by levelling reckless allegations, without ascertaining anything, would amount to defamation u/s 499, I.P.C. By no stretch of imagination it can be said that the act of the petitioners was performed in good faith for public exposture.

The things do not rest here. The most offending pail of the application dated 5th June, 1990 is when it has been alleged by the applicants :

That it appears that this school has become a meeting place for the both sexes and the Principal Mrs. Shobha Gupta is turning a deaf ear towards the character of the students.

What was the basis for the petitioners to make these types of valid allegations, is not clear. It is not established prima facie on the record that the children of the petitioners are studying in that school and those children had brought to the notice of the petitioners about the illegal activities allegedly being carried on in the institution. Nobody has complained in writing to the petitioners in order to strengthen their views about the alleged meeting place of both sexes. The authorities also did not support the allegations of the petitioners that they at any point of time had received similar complaints against the institution and against Smt. Shobha Gupta. If random and reckless allegations are made without reasonable basis, it will be presumed and inferred that such action was without good faith and it was done to bring institution and its principle to disrepute and disrespect. Such an action is not a justified exposture within the meaning of Exception No. 3 of 499 499, I.P.C., but would certainly be a defamatory act attracting the provisions of Section 449(1) of the Indian Penal Code. By no stretch of imagination it can be held that the letter (Annexure P-1) was an act of good faith within the meaning of Section 52 of the Indian Penal Code.

The things also do not rest here. The Executive Authorities had received the complaint (Annexure P-1) and they considered it their duty to investigate into the matter: Annexure R-1 is the letter written by the Sub-Divisional Officer (C), Phagwara, to the Deputy Commissioner, Kapurthala, a reading of which would show that one Miss Kusam Sharma, styling herself as General Secretary of Sangharsh Samiti, Phagwara, made some complaint to the Deputy Commissioner, Kapurthala. In that connection the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Phagwara, gave the report to his Deputy Commissioner. In his report he had submitted that in the complaint of residents of Mohalla Khara Masjid, Phagwara, which was forwarded by Miss Kusam Sharma, General Secretary, Sangharash Samiti, three points were raised on which he made inquiry and visited the spot on 5th August, 1990, with regard to the first allegation, the learned S.D.O. (C) stated that it was by and large incorrect. The S.D.O. (B & R) was directed to visit the school and send his report. The S.D.O. (B & R) pointed out certain defects to the management which have been rectified by the management. The students were found to be studying in a disciplined manner without making any noise. Even the neighbourers did not make any tangible complaint in this respect. However, there was no playground attached to the school. With regard to the third allegation, it was categorically observed by the S.D.O. (C) that it was patently incorrect. No such allegation was raised by anybody at the time of his inquiry and there was absolutely no evidence in this respect. It has been-further stated by the S.D.O. (Civil) that during the course of inquiry and his spot inspection it was revealed that the main architect of the complaint was Shri Jagir Singh, who was trying to get support from few other residents and whose signatures had been obtained by him on his complaint dated 3rd June, 1990. It has also been stated by the S.D.O. (Civil) that his discreet and open inquiries had also revealed that Mrs. Shobha Gupta, Principal, and Sh. Dogar Singh, who was her neighbours, were not on good terms. Smt. Shobha Gupta had also filed so many complaints with the Deputy Commissioner, the-S.D.M. and with the Police, regarding uncalled for behaviour of Dogar Singh. Even Dogar Singh had been summoned by the Police in that connection once or twice. Smt. Shobha Gupta had also obtained a stay order against Dogar Singh and others, restraining them from interfering in her peaceful possession. Thus it was amply clear that Dogar Singh and Smt. Shobha Gupta had a recurring dispute between them. Thus, an independent inquiry revealed that there was nothing illegal from which an inference could be drawn, muchless that the institution of respondent No. 1 had become a meeting place of opposite sexes. The irresponsible allegations without any basis would be nothing else but would amount to defamation. If an unhealthy opinion is formulated by the people in general or by a particular person about the reputation of an educational institution, such institution is bound to suffer. It will have a great impact upon the character and style of working of its Manager/ Principal. These are very sensitive issues and this Court expects that before making a sweeping and general allegations of character assassination against an individual or against an institution, responsibility and utmost care has to be shown by the contemner.

Reverting to the facts of the file, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Magistrate committed a patent illegality when he has not appreciated the background leading to the filing of the complaint before the Deputy Commissioner, Kapurthala. Learned Magistrate also committed an illegality in interpreting the provisions of Section 499, I.P.C., and the evidence which was led by the complainant. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly remarked that by making accusations. "That the school has become a meeting place of opposite sexes", something more than an expression of suspicion has been levelled. By making this type of poisonous propaganda, no'' sane parents would like to send their ward to such an institution where such type of activity was ingenuinely going on. No citizen has got the licence to defame a person unless he expresses his utterances in good faith. Here is a case where the petitioners and others directly wanted to defame the character of Smt. Shobha Gupta before the general public, and particularly before the authorities, so that she and her institution may suffer in many ways. These imputations have been made with a belief that the same would harm the reputation of Smt. Shobha Gupta.

In view of the above discussion, I do not see any merit in the present petition, which is hereby dismissed.

Nothing stated above, would amount to an expression of my opinion on the merits of the, case. The parties through counsel are directed to appear before the trial Court on 26th August, 1997.