ANOOP CHITKARA, J. -
(1.)Challenging the judgment passed by Sessions Court, Una, dismissing the Criminal Revision Petition, filed by the petitioner and upholding the order passed by Judicial Magistrate, Una, who after holding an inquiry did not find sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused, and dismissed the complaint of the petitioner under Section 203 of CrPC, the complainant, who is a practicing Advocate, has now come up before this Court, seeking issuance of process for defamation.
(2.)The petitioner filed a complaint in the Court of Ld. Additional CJM, Una, HP, under Section 190(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, after now called CrPC, against Shri Bhoop Ram Thakur, who was father of his juvenile client, for defaming him in the reply filed by him in another litigation between petitioner Dinesh Chander Sharma and Bhoop Ram Thakur.
(3.)The petitioner in his complaint dated Jan 6, 2008, where apparently figure '2008' is a writing error, and it is a complaint dated Jan 6, 2009, alleged that he is a practicing lawyer, and Shri Bhoop Ram Thakur (respondent herein), had engaged him as a counsel for his minor son, in a case pending before the Juvenile Court, Una Reading of the complaint reveals that due to some financial transactions between the petitioner and the father of his juvenile client, a dispute arose between them, which led to filing of other cases. While replying to one such criminal complaint, which was barred by limitation, and the accused opposed the extension of time under Section 473 CrPC, by filing a written reply (Ext. C-1), it was alleged by the accused that he was harassed, and an amount of Rs.24,000/- obtained from him, by putting pressure on him. In reply, the accused has further mentioned that the counsel had threatened him if he would not make the payment. The response specifies that a compromise had taken place between them, at the intervention of President of Bar Association, and around twelve Advocates.