- (1.) PETITIONERS have questioned the legality and propriety of order dated 30.3.2010, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana, permitting Gurbachan Singh son of Avjinder Singh complainant to be substituted as complainant to prosecute the complaint for defamation under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, against the petitioners.
(2.) BRIEF facts relevant for the decision of the present case are that the complainant Avjinder Singh had purchased a piece of land from Basant Kaur mother of petitioner No.1 who was more than 100 years old by a fraudulent transaction. The petitioners aggrieved by the said transaction filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against complainant Avjinder Singh and others allegedly making a defamatory statement in the complaint to the effect that there was a Will dated 15.6.1979 in favour of Ram Singh (plaintiff No.1) but despite that Basant Kaur defendant No.2 executed a sale deed dated 31.7.1989 in favour of defendant No.1 Avjinder Singh complainant. The sale was illegal, fake, forged, fabricated and an act of fraud played by Avjinder Singh and Basant Kaur and was without consideration. Defendant No.1 (Avjinder Singh) is a professional bad character type of person and has taken advantage of wrong entries in the revenue records and of the old age of defendant No.2 and plaintiff No.1 is not bound by the same. On the basis of said pleadings, the complainant filed a complaint for offence of defamation unde Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code.
(3.) AFTER recording preliminary evidence, the trial Court summoned the petitioners to face trial under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. Avjinder Singh complainant died on 28.10.2009. His son Gurbachan Singh moved an application under Section 256 Cr.P.C., for his substitution as a complainant to proceed with the pending complaint. The petitioners as accused filed reply claiming that the complaint was liable to be dismissed after death of the complainant. The trial Court allowed the application vide impugned order dated 30.3.2010. The trial Court relying upon the judgment in case Shri Balasaheb K Thackery and another Vs. Shri Venkat alias Babur and another, 2006 2 ApexCJ 666, held that the application for permission to proceed with the complaint through Gurbachan Singh son of Avjinder Singh (deceased complainant) is maintainable holding that the judgments in Ashwin Nanubhai Vyas Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another, 1967 AIR(SC) 983, Ratan Singh and others Vs.Chain Singh, 2000 CrLJ 2736 ; and Vishwa Nath Vs. Shambhu Nath Pandeya,1995 CrLJ 277 , cited by the counsel for the petitioners are not applicable to the facts of the case. Through the instant revision petition, the petitioners claim that defamation is a personal injury and it dies with the death of the complainant and the judgment in case Ashwin Nanubhai Vyas has been wrongly distinguished by the trial Court.;