Major Singh and Others vs Balwant Singh

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.—The present petition was filed by Major Singh and his his parents Charan Singh and Gian Kaur, u/s 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing the complaint No. 172 dated 27.8.2004/1.9.2004 titled as "Balwant Singh v. Charan Singh and Ors." (Annexure P5) and the order dated 24.8.2005 (Annexure P6) passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Anandpur Sahib, whereby they were summoned to stand trial for the offence u/s 500 IPC.

Proceedings before the trial Court till further orders were stayed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 24.4.2006. Vide order dated 23.8.2007, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court admitted the petition by passing the following order:

Counsel for the petitioner draws my attention to the complaint which does not indicate any offending words which may lead to any defamation.

Admitted.

Further proceedings shall remain stayed.

On the last date of hearing i.e. on 30.3.2010, nobody was present on behalf of the respondent. Today also, nobody has caused appearance on his behalf.

Therefore, this Court proceeds to decide the petition seeking quashing of the impugned complaint (Annexure P5) and summoning order (Annexure P6).

The entire edifice of the complainant is built on an application dated 21.7.2004 (Annexure P2) addressed by petitioner No. 1 to the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Anandpur Sahib, District Ropar, wherein it was stated that he belonged to Anandpur Sahib and his parents were living alone there at Mohalla Bari Sarkar. It was further stated that the complainant/respondent had forcibly constructed a 25 feet long wall over the land lying towards eastern side of the house owned by his parents and this land was specifically meant for passage of water. He further stated that regarding this forcible occupation and construction, he had submitted an application to the Hon''ble Minister of State for Grievances, Government of Punjab, on 23.5.2004, wherein a grievance was made that local police had not taken any action against the complainant/respondent. The relevant portion of the letter (Annexure P2) reads as under:

Shri Balwant Singh s/o late Shri Birbal has forcibly constructed a 25 feet long wall over the land lying towards eastern side of the house owned by my parents. This land is owned by my parents and is specifically meant for passage of water which has caused agony to my parents.

The complaint regarding this forcible occupation and construction activity was personally submitted to Dr. R.D. Sharma, Hon''ble Minister of State for Grievances, Government of Punjab on 23rd May, 2004 at the residence of Shri Bhajan Singh, President, Municipal Committee, Anandpur Sahib. The application was handed over to your goodself by the Hon''ble Minister for investigation for redressal of the grievance. As a follow up to the case, you had on the spot instructed DSP Anandpur Sahib to investigate the case and submit the report immediately.

I would like to inform that the local police has not taken any action to investigate this matter and instead of conducting impartial enquiry have threatened my parents not to follow up the case as Shri Balwant Singh has close contacts with local police authorities. My parents have been called to police station several times but no investigation has been done to conclude the enquiry as ordered by you.

I request your personal attention in this case immediately as my law abiding aged parents are being threatened of dire consequences by the opposite party since last two months at the behest of local police authorities.

Petitioners No. 2 and 3 had also submitted an application dated 17.8.2004 (Annexure P3) against the complainant, relevant portion thereof reads as under:

That Balwant Singh s/o Birbal r/o Mohalla Bari Sarkar, Anandpur Sahib encroached upon a part of this passage site and constructed a room thereon by marging it with his own land inspite of our request and mediation by the present Anandpur Sahib Municipal Committee, who also happens to be Municipal Commissioner of the paid.

XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XX 5. That on 16.8.2004 at about 1500 hours. The Illaqa Patwari visited the site of spot and made enquiries during which Neelam s/o Balwant Singh came out of her house and began to shower threats of causing injury in case I (petitioner) did pursue the case, she further threatened that she would stop the passage of rainy water and usurp the remaining portion. When the Halqa Patwari Tehsildar that he was on official duty, she took at provocation and threatened of dire consequences.

It is stated that the parents of petitioner No. 1 had filed a Civil Suit No. 138 dated 3.8.2004 (Annexure P4) in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ananadpur Sahib, as the police had not taken any action.

The respondent/complainant, in a complaint (Annexure P5), stated that he was serving in Punjab Armed Police for about 30 years and the accused had filed false applications to various authorities. It was further stated in the complaint that due to the filing of application, his reputation and image was lowered in public at large.

The Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ananadpur Sahib concluded that from the testimony of the witnesses, sufficient grounds were made to proceed against the accused u/s 500 IPC. Section 499 IPC defines "defamation". It states that anybody, who 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 expected, to defame that person.

A perusal of applications dated 21.7.2004 (Annexure P2) and dated 17.8.2004 (Annexure P3) reveals that the accused had only stated that their lands have been encroached by the respondent/complainant and, therefore, action be taken against them. At the most, this can be a false complaint. For making a false complaint, the petitioners can be proceeded u/s 182 IPC. But the expression of a grievance or a complaint of the present nature will not constitute offence of defamation.

Hence, this Court is of the view that complaint (Annexure P5) is nothing but an abuse of process of law.

Thus, the petition is accepted and the complaint (Annexure P5) along with the summoning order dated 24.8.2005 (Annexure P6) are quashed.