Dr. Alka Sehgal vs Dr. Gurjit Kaur

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.J.

CM-3665-2013:

Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.

LPA-1439-2013:

Two doctors are fighting against each other. The appellant made allegations against the respondent. These were given publicity through different modes and continued over a period of time with the result that respondent filed a complaint. The trial court in its wisdom summoned the accused/appellant to stand trial u/s 500 IPC for defamation, after recording preliminary evidence. The appellant, aggrieved by the same, preferred a petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, registered as Criminal Misc. No. M-3017 of 2012. This petition was dismissed by a detailed order on 15.3.2013. The appellant thereafter filed a petition u/s 340 read with Sections 195 and 482 Cr.P.C. for initiation of appropriate proceedings against the respondent for deliberately and wilfully making/giving false averments/evidence before this Court. The allegation of the appellant was that the respondent in spite of full knowledge had made averments to the effect that various complaints made by the appellant to different authorities had been filed, though the fact was that all these complaints were pending. It is also the say of learned counsel for the appellant that respondent had averred in the reply to petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. that appellant had made complaints qua even other doctors which was also incorrect in view of the RTI information obtained by the appellant. The aforesaid petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 15.7.2013.

Insofar as the maintainability of the appeal is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in FAO (OS) 364/2011 titled: Weizmann Ltd. v. MS. Shoes East Ltd. and others, decided on 16.5.2013.

We, therefore, asked the learned counsel for the appellant to address us on merits. The same aspect, as referred to aforesaid, has once again been emphasised by the learned counsel for the appellant.

The learned single Judge while noticing the provisions of Section 340 Cr.P.C. has emphasised on the aspect of the opinion to be formed by the concerned Court in this behalf. He thereafter has opined that mere mentioning of the fact that complaints filed by the appellant against the respondent being pending, is no ground to initiate proceedings u/s 340 Cr.P.C.

We cannot find fault with this conclusion of the learned single Judge while exercising the Letters Patent jurisdiction. The learned single Judge while dealing with the matter came to the conclusion that mere mentioning of disposal of complaints filed by the appellant, which were actually pending, did not persuade the learned single Judge to initiate the proceedings u/s 340 Cr.P.C. This opinion must be respected. There is no doubt that in view of the continuous acrimony between the two parties, the appellant seeks to "fix" the respondent as the appellant is now facing a trial over the allegations of defamation of which the trial Court has taken cognizance.

We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.

Dismissed.