Krishan Lal Ahuja vs Harbans Lal Khattar

M.L. Singhal, J.

This is a revision filed by Krishan Lal Ahuja against the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar dated 25.3.1998 whereby respondent was discharged in complaint titled "Krishan Lal Ahuja v. Harbans Lal Khattar, Editor Publisher, Printer and Proprietor of Daily "Sandhya Khattar Vani", Chameli Market, Rohtak" of offence alleged to have been committed by him under section 500 Indian Penal Code injuring his reputation and bringing him low in the estimation of friends, relations, etc.

Facts :

Krishan Lal Ahuja instituted complaint under Section 500 Indian Penal Code on 22.2.1992 against Harbans Lal Khattar alleging that he is lecturer in Mathematics at Govt. College, Adampur. He enjoys good reputation amongst the society. He owns residential house No. 78/8 situated in Shivaji Colony, Rohtak where his parents reside. He had lent Rs. 20,000/ to his brother Khairati Lal in the year 198788 by means of cheques with a view to enable him to start business in the name and style "Jagdamba Paints & Hardware Store". He promised to repay the amount within 2 years. On 24.9.1991, he visited the said house with a view to realise the amount which he had failed to repay. His brother Jagdish assaulted him with the active connivance of one Surender. He lodged complaint with PS Gandhi Camp, Rohtak with regard to that incident. On 24.2.1991, Harbans Lal Khattar, Editor, Publisher, Printer & Proprietor of a daily evening newspaper called "Sandhya Khattar Vani", Rohtak published the news item with the headline "Gandhi Nagar mei kalyugi puttar dwara maanbaap ki pitaee". According to him this publication was made by Harbans Lal Khattar in the said newspaper with intent to defame him and lower him in the esteem of those who were holding him in esteem. After recording preliminary evidence, the Magistrate found that there were sufficient grounds to proceed against Harbans Lal Khattar under section 500 Indian Penal Code. He accordingly summoned him for trial thereunder.

After recording evidence for the purpose of framing charge, the Magistrate found that there was sufficient evidence against him and that he should be charged under section 500 Indian Penal Code vide order dated 20.8.1996.

On revision, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar vide order dated 25.3.1998 found that the Magistrate should not have ordered the framing of charge. Additional Sessions Judge accordingly accepted the revision and discharged him.

Krishan Lal Ahuja has come up in revision against the order of discharge passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar on 25.3.1998. In this revision the only point that requires consideration is "whether assuming, the publication was made by Harbans Lal Khattar, the publication "Gandhi Nagar mei Kalyugi puttar dwara maanbaap ki pitaee" does attract Section 499 Indian Penal Code where "defamation" is defined as follows :

"499. Defamation. Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes 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, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person.

Explanation 1. It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives.

Explanation 2. It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such.

Explanation 3. An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation.

Explanation 4. No imputation is said to harm a person''s reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful."

Krishan Lal Ahuja has not stated as to in what respect this news has lowered him in the esteem of others assuming that Harbans Lal Khattar is the Editor, Printer, Publisher and Proprietor of Sandhya Khattar Vani. He has not stated that after reading this news students have begun holding him in low esteem or his colleagues have begun holding him in low esteem. He has not stated that because of publication of this news his children have lost in marriage market. Krishan Lal Ahuja has stated that he asked Harbans Lal Khattar to publish contradiction of this news and he refused to publish contradiction of this news saying that he would do so if he was paid Rs. 3,000/ by him. This shows that Krishan Lal Ahuja was not at all defamed by this news. If he had been defamed, how could publication of contradiction of this news restore his lost reputation and esteem in the eyes of others. How could publication contradicting this news would restore his lost reputation and esteem because the saying goes "reputation once lost is difficult to be restored". So, this revision is without any merit and is dismissed.

Revision petition dismissed.