RANJIT SINGH,J - (1.) THE petitioner, who has been summoned for an offence under Section 500 I.P.C. on a complaint filed by respondent No. 1, has filed this petition for quashing of the complaint as well as of the summoning order.
(2.) THE petitioner, claiming himself to be a youth congress leader and Vice President of Punjab Pradesh Youth Congress, has impugned the order summoning him to face proceedings for having defamed respondent No. 1. The petitioner has raised the grievance that the complaint would not reveal any allegation of defamation and, thus, he is wrongly summoned, ignoring the well-settled and understood principle in this regard. He is further aggrieved against the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, dismissing his revision petition. On 26.4.2001, complainant-respondent No. 1, being a President of Nyay Morcha Punjab staged a dharna alongwith some other members of the Morcha in front of the office of Deputy Commissioner, Jalandhar, to protest against the illegal acts of the S.H.O., Police Station Division No. 4. The news about this dharna was covered by various news papers and electronic news channels. On 27.4.2001, the petitioner statedly made a false statement to the Press Reporters against the complainant, which was published in Punjab Kesari. The statements of the petitioner, which were published, are said to be contrary to the facts as covered by other news papers and accordingly, this false news items harmed the reputation of respondent No. 1, leading to his defamation. It is further alleged that on 28.4.2001, the petitioner again made a false statement before the Press Reporters against respondent No. 1, which was published in Punjab Kesari with the similar result, leading to defamation of respondent No. 2. This was allegedly repeated on 29.4.2001 and 1.5.2001 with identical results. Respondent No. 1 accordingly filed a complaint dated 9.6.2001 against the petitioner, newspapers and its correspondents under Sections 499, 500 and 506 IPC. Respondent No. 1 thereafter led preliminary evidence by examining himself as CW1. He reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint and the fact that the news items published by various news papers on the abovesaid dates against the complainant were false, contrary to the facts and had resulted in harming his reputation and, thus, was defamatory in nature. Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, after taking into consideration the preliminary evidence and the news items produced before him, summoned the petitioner under Section 500 IPC. Aggrieved against the summoning order, the petitioner had filed a revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, who dismissed the same on 19.1.2004, leaving it open to the petitioner to plead before the Magistrate that process against him ought not to have been issued. The Revisional Court also observed that Magistrate may drop the proceedings, if he is satisfied on reconsideration of the complaint and on the statement of the complainant that no offence was made out, for which the accused could be tried. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of the complaint, summoning order and the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, refusing to exercise revisional jurisdiction. On notice being issued to respondent No. 1, reply has been filed on his behalf. A preliminary objection was raised in regard to maintainability of the present petition averring that it is a second revision against the summoning order, which is being exercised under the garb of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Other averments made in the petition have also been denied and it is accordingly pleaded that the present petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant has only made allegation of false statement and had not placed any evidence on record to show that publication of the news resulted in his defamation or lowering reputation in the eyes of public to attract the provisions of Section 500 IPC. In this regard, the counsel has referred to the averments in the complaint. Counsel for the petitioner then submits that his case would be covered by Explanation 4 to Section 499, which provides that no imputation is said to harm a person's reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as graceful. Reliance is also placed on Ninth Exception of Section 499 IPC to plead that no offence would be made out against him for which he could have been summoned by the Magistrate. This exception provides that it is not defamation to make any imputation on the character of another, provided that the imputation be made in good faith for the protection of the interest of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good. It is, thus, seen that the petitioner basically has attacked the summoning order on the ground that respondent No. 1 did not lead evidence to prove the press report and the fact that this press report even if true had defamed the said respondent.;