Ram Chand Hari Chand vs Raj Pal Singh and Another

Sabina, J.—Petitioner has filed this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ''Cr.P.C.'') seeking quashing of impugned order dated 20.3.2008 (Annexure P1) dismissing the complaint No. 39 dated 29.8.2005 u/s 500 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ''IPC'') passed by the trial Court and order dated 6.10.2009 (Annexure P2) passed by the Sessions Judge whereby the order passed by the trial Court was upheld.

The case of the complainant in brief, as noticed by the learned Sessions Judge in para 2 of its judgment, reads as under:

The brief facts of the case are that the complainant firm M/s Ram Chand Hari Chand Cotton Ginning Factory, Kotkapura through its partners Rajiv Kumar etc has filed the complaint against the accused Rajpal Singh and Pawan Kumar u/s 500 of Indian Penal Code alleging that the complainant purchased 11000 square yards of land from different persons for running a Cotton Ginning Factory and the mutations were also sanctioned in their favour. Accused No. 1 Raj Pal Singh has no connection with the said land, but he in connivance and conspiracy with accused No. 2 Pawan Kumar made imputations against the complainant firm and its partners to harm their reputation. Accused No. 1 gave applications to the Deputy Commissioner, Chief Minister and other higher authorities and also gave intimation to the Press that the sale deeds of the plots are being executed in connivance and that the mutation be not sanctioned. A news item was also got published in the news paper Jag Bani and Vikas Sandesh levelling allegations against the complainant by both the accused that the complainant party has got the sale deed executed and registered by fabricating the record. The said false assertions were made by the accused just to defame the complainant firm and its partners in the eyes of general public. Both the accused met the complainant Rajiv Kumar and Ashok Kumar in Gurudwara Bazar, Kotkapura and told that they got published the news item and filed applications before the authorities to teach them (complainants) a lesson for not conceding their offer to sell the land of factory through them. It is alleged that the imputations levelled by the accused have lowered the reputation of the complainant and its partners in the eyes of general public. Hence the complaint.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that no ground for interference by this Court is made out.

Petitioner firm through its partner filed a complaint u/s 500 IPC. Both the Courts below have gone through the evidence led by the petitioner firm and has come to the conclusion that no case was made out against the respondent as in the news item, neither the name of the petitioner nor names of any of the partners have been mentioned. Moreover, imputations, if at all, had been made against the Officer of the Sub Tehsil. An application had been sent to the Deputy Commissioner by accused Rajpal Singh and that in itself could not be construed to constitute an offence of defamation. The learned Sessions Judge in paras 6 and 7 of his order has held as under:

I have gone through the record of the case and have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. From the record, I find that in the complaint filed by the complainant firm M/s Ram Chand Hari Chand, Cotton Ginning Factory, Kotkapura through its partners Rajiv Kumar, Suresh Kumar, Ashok Kumar and Naresh Kumar, it has been alleged that all the partners have good reputation in the area and they are income Tax assesses. It is also stated that the firm M/s Ram Chand Hari Chand constructed a Cotton Gining Factory after purchasing land measuring about 11000sq. Yards from different persons and certain mutations were also sanctioned. Accused No. 1 Rajpal Singh moved an application to the Deputy Commissioner, Faridkot on 15.9.2004 and copies thereof were sent to the Chief Minister, Commissioner, Faridkot Division and Naib Tehsildar Kotkapura and also gave intimation to press in respect of the sale deeds being executed and registered regarding the plots at factory road, Kotkapura and rgarding the sale deeds said persons are trying to get mutation sanctioned and that the mutation should not be sanctioned. A news item was also published in the newspaper Jag Bani and Vikas Sandeh in September 2004. It is alleged that both the accused met the complainants Rajiv Kumar and Ashok Kumar and openly said that these news items were got published by them in September 2004 to teach them a lesson for not conceding their offer to sell the land of factory of the complainant through them (accused). It is also averred in the complaint that both the accused again openly asserted the said words that the complainant''s partners have been selling the land fraudulently and cheating the public in the presence of Narinder Kumar Ahuja and Parveen Kumar Jain.

I have perused the news item, which is on the record. No where the names of the accused persons have been given in the news item. Only khasra numbers of the land have been given. The owners of the land situated at Factory Road Surgapuri Kotapura came to know that in connivance with the officers and after forging the documents some sale deeds have been executed of respectable persons. There is no name of anybody in the said news item. Rather, the title of the news item and over all news item put imputations if at all, on the officers of Sub Tehsil, but this complaint has not been filed by any of the officers for defamation. Therefore, in no way this news item has defamed the complainants in the eyes of the general public. From the khasra numbers of the land nobody can come to know as to who are the owners of the land and who is forging the documents for executing the sale deeds?. As regarding the filing of application Ex.P1 to the Deputy Commissioner by accused No. 1. Raj Pal Singh, I find that it does amount to publication, as the complaint has been sent to the Deputy Commissioner and if the Deputy Commissioner feels that this is a false complaint, he can take action as per law. The sending of the complaint to the Deputy Commissioner cannot come to the knowledge of the General public nor in any way it amounts to defamation. Further more, in Ex.P1 also neither the name of the firm nor the name of any of the partners has been mentioned. Further, I find that in the complaint it is alleged that both the accused met the complainants Rajiv Kumar and Ashok Kumar and threatened to teach them a lesson etc also does not amount to defamation because there is nothing to show what words they have said to defame them. Again there is assertion that the accused said these words that the complainant''s partners have been selling the land fraudulently and cheating the public in the presence of Nriner Kumar and Parveeen Kumar Jain. It is no where stated that by making this imputation they were defamed in the presence of Narinder Kumar and Parveen Kumar Jain. Rather the allegations are that after reading news item Pawan Kumar etc. have started keeping the distance. The perusal of the averments in the complaint itself shows that no case for summoning the accused u/s 500 IPC is made out.

The reasons given by the Courts below while dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioners are sound reasons. No ground for interference by this Court is made out.

Dismissed.