Harsh Kumar, J. - (1.) Heard Sri N.K. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. The application for leave to file appeal has been moved by complainant against the impugned judgment and order dated 6.9.2013 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad, acquitting the respondent nos.2 to 10 of the charges under section 500 IPC.
(2.) Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant contended that the appellant was village Pradhan of Village Dhansua, District Farrukhabad and after his being elected as Gram Pradhan, the respondent nos.2 to 10 along with Awdhesh Kumar, Sukhendra Nath and Brij Kishore given a memorandum to District Magistrate Farrukhabad on 2.1.1993 making false charges of moral turpitude and corruption against the appellant with an intention to harm his reputation and the same matter contained in memorandum with false charges was got published in daily local newspaper Amar Ujala on 4.1.1993; that the accused were summoned under section 204 Cr.P.C. and during trial accused Sukhendra Nath and Brij Kishore died and proceedings against them were abated; that during trial accused Awdhesh Kumar entered into compromise with the appellant during Lok Adalat proceedings, through compromise deed dated 30.6.2013 wherein he admitted his wrong and vide order dated 28.7.2013 on his plea of guilty, during Lok Adalat proceedings, he was convicted and proceedings against him were completed; that the respondent Nos.2 to 10 had joined Awdhesh Kumar in submitting the memorandum to the Collector and in getting the defamatory advertisement published in the local newspaper, upon publication of which, great harm was caused to the reputation of appellant ap from the fact that he was also put under suspension; that the respondent Nos.2 to 10 were also party of the protest demonstration against the appellant which resulted in his suspension on account of political influence; that the learned Magistrate has acted wrongly in discarding the complainant's evidence and acquitting the respondent nos.2 to 10.
(3.) Per contra, learned AGA contended that the judgment and order passed by the Magistrate is correct and there is no glaring mistake or perversity in the impugned order.;