Kuldip Singh vs Sandeep Kaur

V.K. Bali, J. (Oral)

Kuldip Singh through present petition filed by him under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeks quashing of complaint, Annexure P1, filed against him and one Rana Dhinsa by respondent Sandeep Kaur under Section 500 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and aftermath thereof i.e. the summoning order, Annexure P2, dated November 25, 1994 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phillaur.

Broadly, the allegations made by Sandeep Kaur against the petitioner and Rana Dhinsa in the complaint, referred to above, are that she is legally wedded wife of Rana Dhinsa. The marriage between them was performed according to religious rites and ceremonies on March 15, 1992 at village Gura which was later registered on March 31, 1992 with the Registrar of Marriagescum Tehsildar, Phillaur. The marriage was consummated and a female child was born, who was named as Jasmine, from this wedlock. Rana Dhinsa left for Canada in the month of April, 1992 and did not provide maintenance to her, thus, constraining her to file an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., for maintenance for herself and her minor child. Rana Dhinsa appeared through his attorney, Kuldip Singh, petitioner herein. In the written statement filed in those proceedings, petitioner and Rana Dhinsa intentionally, maliciously and with intention to harm the reputation of the complaint and to lower her dignity and honour in the eyes of general public, relatives, friends and society, used defamatory words such as "however, Kuldip Singh had no knowledge of the paternity of petitioner No. 2. Therefore, relationship of petitioner No. 2 with the respondent is denied. Petitioner No. 2 is not child of the respondent as per knowledge of Kuldip Singh as mentioned above..... Petitioner No. 1 is the wife of respondent but Kuldip Singh does not know as to whether petitioner No. 2 is daughter of the respondent. Therefore, relationship of petitioner No. 2 with the respondent is denied.... But Kuldip Singh does not know about any cohabitation and pregnancy." It is the case of the complainantrespondent that the aforesaid words are defamatory and have been intentionally used. The accused were and are well within the knowledge that the complainant was and is legally wedded wife of Rana Dhinsa and she had given birth to a female child from the loins of Rana Dhinsa, who had also written letter to the complainant regarding pregnancy, wherein cohabitation is admitted. It is further the case of the complainant that she is a lady of character and Rana Dhinsa is real father of the child but the accused have intentionally, in order to defame the complainant, wrongly used the aforesaid defamatory words in the written statement.

After recording preliminary evidence, the learned magistrate summoned the petitioner and Rana Dhinsa to face the charge sought to be made out against them in complaint, Annexure P1, under Section 500 read with Section 34 IPC.

At the motion stage, so also now the only contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the pleadings contained in a reply to an application filed on behalf of the respondents, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., were not defamatory and in any case till such time the written statement was examined and verdict thereon was given, the complaint under Section 500 IPC could not be entertained and proceeded.

In pursuance of the notice issued by this Court, reply has been filed. It is the case of the respondent that the words mentioned above, so specifically mentioned in the complaint, are defamatory and that the proceedings U/s 125 Cr.P.C. have already come to an end wherein false and defamatory averments made, as have been reproduced above, could not be proved by the petitioner herein. A copy of order passed by Miss Amarjit Kaur, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phillaur dated September 26, 1995, has been annexed as Annexure R.1 with the written statement.

When the matter came up for hearing on December 1, 1995, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that a copy of the order passed by the Magistrate had not been attached with the copy of reply supplied to him. He prayed for a short adjournment which was allowed. During the course of arguments, when learned counsel read the allegations contained in the reply filed by the petitioner in the petition preferred by respondent herein under Section 125 Cr.P.C., he was unable to convince the Court that such words were not defamatory. Inasmuch as the Magistrate dealing with the matter under Section 125 Cr.P.C. did not return a finding in favour of the petitioner with regard to the allegations contained in the written statement, learned counsel also could not urge anything further in the matter. It appears that after going through the order, Annexure R1, learned counsel for the petitioner had practically nothing to say in the matter. This petition is totally devoid of merit and is, therefore, dismissed.