J.S.SEKHON, J. - (1.) THE controversy in this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the complaint for Offence Under Sections 351, 384, 500, 511 and 504, Indian Penal Code, is whether the trial Court is debarred from taking cognizance of the offences under section 197 of the Code and whether the general assertions regarding members of the Bar would ex-facie amount to defamation.
(2.) THE brief resume of facts relevant for the disposal of this petition is that the petitioner is a member of the Haryana Civil Service and was posted as Officer on Special Duty to the Administrator, C.A.D.A. Hissar. Smt. Neelam Vats wife of the complainant Shri Narain Datt Vats, Advocate, is working as Junior Scale Stenographer in that office. Due to the ailment of her son on 10-5-1989 she sent application for leave through her husband, i.e., Shri Narain Datt Vats. This application was handed over by Shri Narain Datt Vats to Amar Singh peon of that office at 7 a.m. as by then the accused-petitioner had not arrived. The peon was requested to put up the application before the accused-petitioner. After some time Amar Singh peon contacted the complainant in the Bar Room, Hissar, and apprised him of the accused having not entertained the application besides having called the complainant as bloody bastard and idiot etc. The complainant then took back this application from the peon after getting an endorsement from the latter to the effect that the accused had refused to entertain the application. Thereafter, on the same day when the accused came to know of this endorsement by the peon, he directed the peon to fetch the complainant from the Bar Room. On this, the complainant along with his colleague Harish Chander Chaudhary, Advocate, went to the office of the accused. On seeing both the lawyers, it is alleged, the accused got up from his seat and shouted as to why they have come to his office as he had called only the complainant. On enquiry by the complainant as to why be was called to the office, the accused threatened that the complainant should hand over the application along with the note of the peon failing which the accused will terminate the services of the complainant's wife and would lodge a complaint against the complainant. On the insistence of the complainant as to why the accused had refused to entertain the application, the accused remarked that he was not answerable to the complainant. He further stated, "You are just the hungry dogs which bite the pockets of villagers coming to the court". The complainant then requested the accused not to behave in that manner being a responsible officer but the accused secured the complainant from the front of his shirt and pushed him. out of the office while giving filthy abuses and threatening the complainant to kill. The accused also tried to give slaps to the complainant.
(3.) THE trial Court after recording the preliminary evidence of the complainant and his colleague Shri Harish Chander Chaudhry, Advocate, summoned the accused to face trial for offence under section 500, Indian Penal Code, only, vide order dated 22-5-1989. Both the parties then filed revision petitions before the Sessions Judge, Hissar, against the said order of the trial Court. The learned Sessions Judge, Hissar, dismissed the revision petition of the accused-petitioner while the revision petition filed by the complainant was accepted vide order dated 14.8.1989 with the direction that as the statements of the witnesses make out a prima facie case for offences under sections 355, and 504, Indian Penal Code also, the trial Court should summon the accused for these offences also.;