- (1.) This revisional application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is preferred by the petitioners for quashing the proceedings being C. Case No.42 of 2010 under Sections 500/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 pending before the Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Purulia.
(2.) The background of filing the present revisional application is that on February 7, 2010 the petitioner No.1 submitted one written complaint before the officer-in-charge of Purulia Town Police Station disclosing the fact that the opposite party No.2, Shri Raj Kumar Mishra and his brothers and associates obstructed the labourers engaged by the petitioners for carrying out renovation work in the house purchased by them from the brother of grand-father of the opposite party No.2. The petitioner No.1 alleged in the said petition of complaint that the opposite party No.2 and his associates abused the petitioners with filthy language, threatened them with dire consequences and assaulted the petitioner No.1 by holding the tuft of her hair. The officer-in-charge of Purulia Town Police Station treated the said petition of complaint as FIR No.21 of 2010 dated February 7, 2010 under Sections 143/447/448/323/354/506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Police investigated the case and submitted the charge sheet in due course against the opposite party No.2 and his associates who are related with each other. The opposite party No.2 and his associates contested the said criminal case which ultimately ended in acquittal. On 24.03.2010 the opposite party No.2 filed a petition of complaint before the Court of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purulia against the present petitioners disclosing the fact that the present petitioners made false allegation against them before the officer-in-charge of Purulia Town Police Station and thereby Purulia Town Police Station Case No.21 of 2010 dated 07.02.2010 was started against the opposite party No.2 and others. The opposite party No.2 has specifically stated in the said petition of complaint that the reputation of the opposite party No.2 and his associates was lowered down in the eye and estimation of his friends, relatives and well-wishers due to their implication in the criminal case on false allegation. Accordingly, the opposite party No.2 has filed the petition of complaint before the Court of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purulia against the present petitioners for issuing process under Sections 500/501/34 of Indian Penal Code and the same was registered as C. Case No.42 of 2010. Ultimately, the said case was transferred to the Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Purulia who issued process against the petitioners under Sections 500/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the petitioners appeared and surrendered before the Court of Learned Magistrate and were released on bail.
(3.) Mr. Kallol Mondal, Learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that the contents of the petition of complaint filed by the opposite party No.2 against the petitioners before the Court of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate do not disclose any offence under Sections 500/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Mr. Mondal has pointed out that Learned Magistrate did not make any observation in the judgement of the criminal case started against the opposite party No.2 and others that the statements made by the witnesses in the said case are false. By referring to Eighth Exception to Section 499 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, Mr. Mondal has urged before this Court that it is not defamation to prefer in good faith any accusation against any person before the lawful authority. On the other hand, Mr. Mukherjee Learned Advocate representing the opposite party No.2 submits that the reputation of the opposite party No.2 and the witness nos.2 and 3 of the petition of complaint was lowered down in the eye and estimation of the friends and relatives due to their implication in the criminal case being FIR No.21 of 2010 dated February 7, 2010 started at the instance of the petitioner No.1, particularly when they have been harassed and ultimately acquitted of the charge in the said criminal case. However, Mr. Mukherjee, Learned Advocate for the opposite party No.2 could not point out from the judgment of the criminal case arising out of FIR No.21 of 2010 dated February 7, 2010 that the petitioners made any false allegation against the opposite party No.2 or that the witnesses in the said criminal case gave any false evidence. None appears on behalf of the state to make any submission in this case.;