Dismissed

Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Sept 2012CRM-M/17546/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court in Criminal Misc. No. M-17546 of 2012 held that a complaint filed by a daughter-in-law regarding matrimonial harassment falls under the 8th exception of Section 499 IPC, involving family disputes, and thus does not constitute defamation.

What did the court decide?

Crl. Misc. Petition dismissed; lower courts' orders quashed order and dismissal order dismissed as they correctly applied the 8th exception.

Baldev Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M-17546 of 2012

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M-17546 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.09.2012

Baldev Singh

....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others

¶9

....Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH

¶11

Present: - Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

¶13

PARAMJEET SINGH, J. (ORAL)

¶14

The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 20.03.2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, as well as the order dated 11.11.2011 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, in Criminal Complaint No.319/1/98 of 26.10.2009 under Sections 499/500/34 IPC.

¶15

Brief facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by respondent No.2 Avtar Kaur before the police authorities against the petitioner. Senior Superintendent of Police marked that complaint to the Women Cell and enquiry was conducted. As a result of that complaint, petitioner was called to the police station and the police officials visited his village, which resulted into lowering his reputation among the family members and the residents of the village, which amounts to defamation. Since the police officials visited his village and enquiry was conducted within the area of the village as such the attitude of the inhabitants of the

¶16

-2-

¶17

Crl. Misc. No. M-17546 of 2012

¶18

village has changed towards him and the image of the petitioner has been lowered in their eyes.

¶19

Learned Magistrate after considering the evidence on record, dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner. Petitioner preferred revision, which was also dismissed by learned Sessions Judge relying upon the 8^th exception of Section 499 IPC. Hence this petition.

¶20

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that 8^th exception of Section 499 IPC will be only applicable when the accused after summoning will raise the defence plea and the fact is to be proved by the accused that the acquisition was made in a good faith. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the Magistrate without summoning the parties and without considering that that fact cannot be dismiss the complaint straightway.

¶22

I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

¶23

The perusal of the record and the judgments of both the Courts below clearly reveals that as per eighth exception of Section 499 IPC bona fide filing of the complaint is to be proved by the accused, only then this exception will become applicable. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that complaint amounts to defamation, is not sustainable. Admittedly, the petitioner is father-in-law and complaint has been filed by Avtar Kaur i.e. daughter-in-law of the petitioner. This is with regard to the matrimonial dispute between the parties. Once, Avtar Kaur has felt that she is being harassed by the parents, she has taken a recourse to approach the competent authority by

¶24

-3-

¶25

Crl. Misc. No. M-17546 of 2012

¶26

moving an application. It is a common knowledge that when the parties feel aggrieved they approach the police authorities for redressal of their grievances. In my opinion, it was the only option at the initial stage before Avtar Kaur to approach the police authorities and in a bona fide manner she has approached the authorities, as such the complaint filed by Avtar Kaur comes within the scope of eighth exception of Section 499 IPC and both the Courts below have recorded concurrent finding of fact and the complaint filed by the petitioner has rightly been dismissed.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the complaint filed by Avtar Kaur has been found to be false during the investigation by the police authorities and some applications were also found false in the divorce proceedings.

¶28

This is not the case of the petitioner that the averments in the divorce proceedings, were made before the criminal Court. Those proceedings were also consequential result of matrimonial dispute. This is always probable that such pleadings are pleaded by the parties. So far as the present complaint is concerned, this certainly falls within the purview of eighth exception of Section 499 IPC and, therefore, does not amount to defamation.

¶29

Dismissed.

¶30

(Paramjeet Singh) Judge

¶31

September 18, 2012 R.S.

Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kala Singh Vs State of Punjab

Jaswant Singh Vs Stateof Pb

Jang Sher Singh Vs State of Punjab

Mani @ Manpreet Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Chandro Devi Vs State of Haryana

Balkar Singh Vs State of Punjab etc.