Dismissed

Smt. Saraswati Thakur v. Rakesh Thakur

Chhattisgarh HC4 Jan 2011CRMP/413/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 482 CrPC, the petitioner challenged the cognizance of a criminal complaint alleging defamation. The bench held that the instant complaint was based on different facts compared to previous complaints and concluded it was maintainable, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

The petition seeking quashing of the criminal complaint was dismissed with no interference.

Smt. Saraswati Thakur Vs Rakesh Thakur — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Chhattisgarh HC (2011)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR

¶2

Criminal Misc. Petition No.413 of 2010

¶3

PETITIONER: Smt. Saraswati Thakur W/o Rakesh Thakur, aged about 41 years, R/o Qtr. No.10 F, Street No.86, Near Durga Manch, Sedtor—6,‘ Bhilai, District_ Dui'g v' ' (C.G.)

Versus

‘{/

RESPONDENT:

Rakesh Thakur S/o Shyam Lal Thakur, aged about 47 years, R/o Chaukhadiapara, Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶9

{Petition‘under^{Section482ofCodeofCriminalProcedure}}

¶10

P resent: ,

¶11

Mr. Saurabh Dangi, counsel for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Rakesh Thakur, counsel for the respondent.

¶13

Single Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J

ORAL ORDER

(4—1—201¹⁾

‘ 1 . ‘ Heard.

By this petitionunder Section 482 of the Code ofVCriminaI Procedure, ',

¶18

19F3 the pinerettio has^cle halnged legality a nd proetypri of the oderr dated 120—4—201 pdasse by the J udicial Misatagtre Frsit C lass, Ranagojndan in Ciinrmal C omplaint Caes No.304/21,00 wherbye the Cortu belwo has take n cznceognia of th e oeffenc agnsait the petiortine herien a nd registered oenceff pnihaleusb^undr e^Section50 0 rea d with Stionec 34 of the ICP.

¶19

. Ldearne couelns fo r teh pteitioner submits tha t at teh instcane of th e 'etitiner po he,rein Ciinalrm Comlaitpn Case N5/96o.08 has been rgereeistd against the reoetspndn hreine in the year 1996 a nd the repndent‘assow p rolonging th e csea before the trila C.ourt Terore,hef the petionerit^hin ere has filed pnetitio under Section 4 82 of th e CrP C beanrig Cr.101.M.P.No36/20 i n whi ch v ide ord er dadte 31-3-200 a c o rdinate Bench of this Court has directed for cusonclion of tlria whitin six msonth from teh n ext date of hearing of the cas e. After the sdai oerrd paseds^by a coordinate Benc h of this Co urt, with a n obliqeu miveot an d

¶20

to hara s the petitoneri^herein, the complainant/respdnonet heiren has filed two complai nt cases beriang Criminal Comlaintp Case

¶21

Nos.142/2010 and 143/2010 before the Coun of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon, ahd again on same set of facts and evidence third complaint i.e. Criminal Complaint Case No.304/2010 has been registered against the petitioner^{hereinbeforethesameCourt.} Learned counsel vehemently argued that facts and alleged act relating to the aforesaid two complaints and the present complaint are one and same. Therefore, in the light of judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Poona‘m Chand Jain and another v. Fazru, (2004) 13 SCC 269, second complaint or subsequent complaint is not maintainable.

¶22

,i"

¶23

. On the other hand, learnedrcounsel for the respondent opposes the petition^{andsubmitsthatthetwo} previous^{complaintsarebasedonthe} act committed by the petitioner and use of criminal force at the‘time^of cemmission of offence, and the present complaint is based on the defamatory publication^madebythe petitioner herein. Facts and act committed by the petitioner in both the cases (previous two complaints and the instant Complaint) are not one and same. Therefore, both the complaint cases are maintainable.

¶24

I have perused the order impugned and copy of the complaint.

¶25

. Definitely, present complaint is based on the alleged written defamatory complaint made by the petitioner herein before the Human Rights authorities and based on documents. Both the complaints (previous two complaints and the instant complaint) are not one and same. Therefore, the instant complaint is maintainable under the law. l do not find any scope of interference in the present case, terms of Section 482 of the CrPC. The petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed.

¶26

Soma

¶27

x/ . Consequently, l.A.No.1 stands disposed of: 5d]. 1y^.5mm? ‘udge

Smt. Saraswati Thakur v. Rakesh Thakur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Saraswati Thakur v. Rakesh Thakur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jhumtoo and Ors. Vs Mahngu and Ors.

Smt.Sandhya Meshram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Halalkhkor Vs Sukhdei and Ors.

Smt.Saraswati Thakur and Ors. Vs Rakesh Thakur

Yogendra Kumar Maravi Vs Sanjay Soni and Anr.

Ratnesh Jaiswal Vs Rajendra Chawla