Inder Pal Singh v. Push Pal Kaur & Anr

ORDER o/o

24.09.2010 The present petition is filed by the petitionerunder Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying inter alia quashing of a Complaint No.5959/01/2010lodged againsthim by the respondentsNo.l &2, his sister-in-law and father-in-law, under Sections 384/500/509 IPC, registered with PS Hari Nagar, New Delhi, and for setting aside the order dated 20.8.2010 passed by the learned MetropolitanMagistrate, summoning the petitioner on 25.9.2010. Counsel for the petitionerstates that the complaintfiled by the respondentsunder Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. is a counterblast to the complaintfiled by his clientagainstthem a few days earlier. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the documents annexed by the respondents/complainantswith their complaint,do not show any act of defamation on the part ofthe.petitioner,and therefore,the complaint CRL.M.C. 3047/2010 Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. lodged by them is liable to be quashed straight away. A perusal of the record shows that apart from the documents enclosed with the complaint, and referred to by the counsel for the petitioner,the complainants/respondentsexamined5 witnesses,at the pre-summoning stage, including themselves. After perusing the testimony of the aforesaid 5 witnesses, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate held that while no grounds were made out for summoning the petitioner for the offence of extortion, punishable under Section 384 IPG, sufficient grounds were found In the prosecution evidence to proceed against the petitioner and issued summons to him for the offences under Section 500/509 IPG. The impugned order takes note of the testimony of 5 witnesses, including that of the complainants. All the aforesaid witnesses have deposed that the petitioner had passed vulgar remarks against the respondents/complainants used defamatory language against them in their hearing on various occasions. Including during a religious ceremony. The submission of counsel petitioner that documents have been filed by the complainants/respondents along with the complaint to enable the trial court to arrive at a conclusion that it was a fit case for summoning the petitioner, is answered by the GRL.M.G. 3047/2010 definition of the term 'Defamation' under Section 499 of the IPG, which specifies that a person can be defamed not only by written words, but by such words spoken or by such signs or by visible representations, imputing harm to the reputation of such a person. Similarly, the language of Section 509 IPG indicates that no written material is required to establish that a person intends to insult the modesty of a woman. Rather, any word uttered, sound or gesture made or any object exhibiting with the intention that such words or sound be heard, or such gesture or object be seen, by such a woman, as to intrude upon her privacy, is liable to be treated as an offence under Section 509 IPG. In the present case, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, as mentioned in the impugned order dated

20.8.2010, reflects that allegations have been leveled against petitioner using defamatory words circulating written material against complainants/ respondents. Having regard to the aforesaid pre-summoning evidence, the petitioner has been summoned by the trial court for the offences under Section 500/509 IPG. The petitioner is well aware of his right under Gr.P.G. to examine aforesaid witnesses in the present case after being summoned. GRL.M.G. 3047/2010 Instead of exhausting the said right, he has rushed this Court by filing the present premature petition. In aforesaid facts circumstances, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings arising out of the complaint case or set aside the impugned order dated 20.8.2010, as sufficient material was available on the record for summoning the petitioner. The petition is, therefore, dismissed being devoid of merits, along with the pending applications. HIIVIA KOHLI,J SEPTEMBER 24, 2010 sk CRL.M.C. 3047/2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 3047/2010 &CrLM.As. No.15541-02/2010 INDER PAL SINGH Petitioner Through : Mr. Sachin Mishra, Adv. versus PUSH PAL KAUR &ANR Respondents Through : None. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI