M.P.Singh Sahni v. State &Ors

S.P.GARG, J.

¶1Present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing of order dated 04.06.1999 by which he was summoned for committing offence punishable under Section 500 IPC.

¶2It reveals that complaint case was filed by respondent No.2 against the petitioner on 13.01.1998 for committing offence under Section 500 IPC. It was alleged that pursuant to agreement dated 22.07.1991 executed with the petitioner, he was to provide professional/ consultancy services to him. Number of correspondences exchanged between them. It

is alleged that the petitioner sent several fax messages thorough his FAX No.2465421 at Kuwait on his FAX and telephone No.6445057 and 6460681 respectively. He permitted him to send the fax messages at FAX No.6466796 installed at his tenant's residence when his fax was out of order. The petitioner used derogatory and un-parliamentary language in the fax messages sent by him at the fax installed in his tenant's residence. Fax messages dated 30.11.1997 and 02.12.1997, contained un-parliamentary language. The petitioner was aware that the tenant would have an opportunity to read the fax messages. The petitioner with an intention to cause damage to his reputation published defamatory material without due care and caution.

¶3The respondent No.2/ complainant examined himself as CW-1 besides producing CW-2 (Harminder Singh) in his pre-summoning evidence. The Trial Court by the impugned order was of the view that there was sufficient evidence to proceed against the petitioner under Section 500 IPC. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner has preferred the petition.

¶4It is pointed out that the respondent did not disclose the name of the tenant at whose residence the fax was installed. The respondent has

filed various false cases to blackmail him. The respondent has controverted these arguments.

¶5I have examined the contents of the fax messages proved on record in the pre-summoning evidence. Prima facie, all these fax messages contain derogatory/ defamatory language. The fax messages were sent on FAX No.6466796 which is purportedly installed at the residence of the petitioner's tenant. At this stage, there was enough material before the Trial Court to proceed against the petitioner. The documentary evidence is in consonance with oral evidence. CW-2 (Harminder Singh) deposed that the contents of the fax messages were read by him in the office. In the fax messages, the petitioner levelled allegations and imputations against the complainant. It finished his respect and reputation in their eyes. He also revealed the tenant's name Anil Bahl at whose fax machine, the messages were sent. The petitioner will have to prove innocence during trial and to show that his case falls in any of the exceptions to Section 499 IPC. It is pertinent to note that earlier the respondent had filed complaint case in 1997 under Section 500 IPC where in the FAX messages dated

02.09.1996, 06.08.1997, 10.08.1997 and 27.08.1997 also, he prima facie, used un-parliamentary language. The petitioner was summoned in the said complaint vide order dated 05.01.2002 by the Trial Court. It is not

necessary to prove that the complainant actually suffered directly or indirectly from the scandalous imputations alleged. It is sufficient to show that the accused intended to harm or knew or had reasons to believe that the imputations would harm the reputation of the complainant. Reputation can be defined to be good name, the credit, honour or character which is derived from a favourable public opinion or esteem and character by report. The right to enjoyment of a good reputation is a valuable privilege and necessary to human society. The complaint case contains sufficient material to proceed against the petitioner for committing offence under Section 500 IPC. I find no merits in the petition and the same is dismissed.

¶6Interim order (if any) stands vacated. Pending application stands disposed of. Trial Court record (if any) be sent back forthwith.

(S.P.GARG)

JUDGE MAY 30, 2013 tr

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON : 1st FEBRUARY, 2013 DECIDED ON : 30th MAY, 2013 + CRL.M.C. 3784/2003 & CRL.M.A.5110/2003 M.P.SINGH SAHNI ..... Petitioner Through : Mr.M.P.Singh Sahni in person. versus STATE & ORS. ..... Respondents Through : Mr.Harnam Singh in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG