ARUN MADAN - (1.) From the perusal of the summoned record and after hearing learned counsel for the parties at length, prima-facie, I am of the opinion that Investigating Officer of P. S. Sodala has not conducted the fair investigation and the Final Report which was filed by him in pursuance of the FIR dt. 31-10-1991 is also beyond the scope of his powers and jurisdiction. The complainant's story as unfolded by the FIR itself is false and baseless keeping in view the fact that respondent No. 2 Smt. Koka Devi was herself guilty of an offence by having raised unauthorized construction the front side of the wall adjoining the premises of petitioner in such a manner so as to stop the free ingress and outgress of the fresh air and light into the premises of the petitioner. The report to this effect was earlier lodged by the petitioner with the JDA Officials on 26-9-1991 on the basis of which, the JDA Officials had inspected the site and directed respondent No. 2 to remove the unauthorized construction and that construction was earlier demolished which was raised at the behest of respondent No. 2. Thereafter, being aggrieved by the action of JDA Officials who had carried out the demolition of the unauthorized construction of the portion raised by respondent No. 2 in her premises, she lodged an FIR against the petitioner who is a practising Advocate of this Court on 6-10-1991 itself which was registered with P. S. Sodala on 7-10-1991. The FIR contained the false and baseless allegations which prima facie were tended to injure and harm the reputation of Shri A. N. Gupta who is a practising Advocate of this court. The falsity of the said allegation has also been proved from the statement of the accused herself recorded under Section 313, Cr. P.C. wherein, she has deposed that she had signed some blank papers at the instance of one of her friend Moni Devi who had instigated her and hence, she had lodged the FIR with the police. It obviously shows the mala fide intention of that lady in having lodged the FIR against Shri A. N. Gupta. Instead of behaving like a good neighbour, she thought that since the petitioner is a Member of the Bar, she is free to make any kind of wild allegations against him and at the instigation of some other person an FIR was lodged which is quite reprehensible. From the perusal of the Final Report dt. 31-10-1991 Exh. P/2, it is fully evident that though a clear case was made out for proceeding against the accused for commission of substantive offence punishable under Section 509, IPC it was done at a later stage of investigation apparently with a view to help the accused contrary to the evidence on the record. The witnesses who were examined by the complainant itself reveals that it was done only after filing the FR No. 200/91 that too at a stage when the petitioner preferred the complaint before the learned Magistrate after recording the evidence led by the complainant as per the requirement of Sections 200 and 202, Cr. P.C. and after having taken cognizance against the accused as per Section 204, Cr. P.C. recording the finding of acquittal against the accused against which the petitioner has sought leave to appeal. Ordinarily speaking the law is well settled that this Court should not lightly interfere with the findings of acquittal recorded by the trial Court unless, circumstances justifying inferences contrary being drawn on the basis of the evidence led by the complainant of his neighbours who are quite independent witnesses namely; PW1 Suresh Chand Kulshreshtha, PW2 Satya Narain, PW3 complainant himself, PW4 Narhari Sharma, Secretary JDA, SHO Chaganlal and ASI Garibchand. I am satisfied that the prima faice case was fully made out and established on the record for proceeding against the accused for offences under Sections 500 and 211, IPC. Section 499, IPC defining the defamation stipulates, as under :- 499:- Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame the person. Explanation 1 : It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives. Explanation 2 : It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or on association or collection of person as such. Explanation 3 : An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation. Explanation 4 : 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 disgraceful."
(2.) In view of the falsity of the FIR filed by accused-Koka Devi against the petitioner on 6-10-1991 which fact is fully proved and established not only from the statement of the petitioner himself but also from the corroborative evidence of independent witnesses on the record, I am of the view that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against accused-respondent No. 2 as per the provisions of Section 211, IPC which stipulates, as under :- False charge of offence made with intent to injure. 211. Whoever, with intent to cause injury to any person, institutes or cause to be instituted any criminal proceeding against that person, or falsely charges any person with having committed an offence, knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding or charge against that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; and if such criminal proceeding be instituted on a false charge of an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for seven years or upwards, shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
(3.) I am fortified in my observations from the judgment of the Apex court in the matter of Sohrab v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1972 SC 2020 : (1972 Cri LJ 1302) wherein, the similar question had arisen for consideration of the Apex Court. The Apex Court laid down the parameters and guidelines to be followed by the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 401, Cr. P.C. observing that :- "Though no limitation can be placed upon this power in exercising the power the High Court should and will always give proper weight and consideration to such matters as (1) the view of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial; (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt; and (4) the slowness of an appellate Court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses." ;