Naresh Sachdeva vs Balraj Singh

K.S. Kumaran, J.

RespondentBalraj Singh filed a complaint under Sections 499, 500/34 of the Indian Penal Code against petitioner Naresh Sachdev and three others before the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Siwani (Annexure P1). The allegations against the petitioner and others are that the petitioner and others used unparliamentary language and wrong words and that the petitioner also said that the respondent was under the influence of liquor. Therefore, the respondent alleged that he was publicly defamed by the accused intentionally.

The Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Siwani, after examining the complainant and others held that no case is made out against the petitioner and others under Sections 499, 500 I.P.C. but held that there is a prima facie case against the petitioner and two others under Section 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and ordered them to be summoned for 3.6.1994. The copy of order of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Siwani, dated 29.4.1994 has been produced as annexure P.2. The petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the complaint annexure P1, the summoning order Annexure P2 and the further proceedings arising therefrom.

The contention of the petitioner is that when the Judicial Magistrate held that no offence was made out under Sections 499 and 500 I.P.C. no criminal proceedings can be initiated against the petitioner as no complaint was lodged under Section 504 I.P.C. The further contention of the petitioner is that no offence under Section 504 has also been committed. According to the petitioner, nowhere in the complaint and the summoning order, it is mentioned as to what type of unparliamentary language was used by the petitioner. Another contention raised by the petitioner is that the alleged occurrence had taken place in the area of Police Station, Sadar, Hissar, and therefore, Court at Siwani has no jurisdiction. Yet another contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a public servant and the complainant had not obtained sanction from the Government for prosecuting him, since the offence has been committed by him while acting in the discharge of his official duty.

The respondent has filed a reply that the petitioner had absented himself from the trial Court since 6.1.1996 and nonbailable warrants have been issued against him and, therefore, the petitioner cannot seek the discretionary relief under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The respondent claims that the Magistrate was empowered to summon the accused for any offence which is made out from the evidence and the mere mentioning of certain offences in the complaint makes no difference. According to the respondent, the order has been passed by the Magistrate after applying his mind and is, therefore, perfectly valid, and the offence under Section 504 I.P.C. is also made out. The respondent claims that the Court at Siwani has jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint, and that the acts of the petitioner and the coaccused are not part of their duty and, therefore, no sanction was necessary from the Government.

I have heard the counsel for both the sides.

The first objection of the respondent is that charges have been framed on 9.6.1995 and therefore, Court should not interfere in its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash the complaint and summoning order. The learned counsel for the respondent relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Minakshi Bala v. Sudhir Kumar, 1994(3) R.C.R. 123 in support of his contention, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that once charges have been framed under Section 240 Cr.P.C., the High Court should not invoke its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the present case, the trial Court, before it issued notice (Annexure P3) to the petitioner and others to face the charge under Sections 504/34 I.P.C., had not only considered the complaint, preliminary evidence before it and also the rival contentions. In these circumstances, the contention of the petitioner that it has not mentioned either in the complaint or in the summoning order as to what unparliamentary or wrong words were used by the petitioner will not be of any assistance in these proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. These matters will have to be gone into at the time of trial.

Another objection taken by the petitioner is that the Court at Siwani has no jurisdiction since the occurrence alleged had taken place within the area of Police Station Sadar, Hissar.

But the respondent is working as a Conductor in the Rajasthan Transport Corporation, and while he was performing his duty as such, the accused who were members of the flying squad entered the bus and used unparliamentary words. The bus was running from Hissar to Jhunjhunu. The learned counsel for the respondent rightly contends that under Section 183 Cr.P.C. when an offence is committed while a person against whom the offence is committed is in the course of performing a journey, the offence may be inquired into or tried in a Court through or into whose local jurisdiction that person passed in the course of journey and therefore the Court at Siwani has jurisdiction. Therefore, this objection of the petitioner is also not sustainable.

Another objection taken by the petitioner is that the alleged occurrence is stated to have taken place when the petitioner and his colleagues, in the discharge of their duties, inspected the bus in which the respondent herein was performing his duty as a conductor and, therefore, sanction of the Government is necessary before the respondent lodged the prosecution against the petitioner and others. But the learned counsel for the respondent contends that abusing or using unparliamentary language is not part of the duty of the petitioner. I am of the view that this matter has to be raised at the time of the trial before the trial Court. I leave this point open to be raised at the time of the trial since this is a matter which has to be decided after taking evidence as to the circumstances under which the alleged abusive or unparliamentary language came to be used. Therefore, I find that there are no grounds for quashing the complaint or the summoning order impugned in this petition.

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.