Parkash Chand vs Pritam Chand

V.S. Aggarwal, J.

Surinder Kaur was married to the son of Pritam Chand on 28.2.1982. They were blessed with a child. The relations between the husband and the wife were strained. Petitioner Surinder Kaur filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It was withdrawn. Son of the respondent filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It was dismissed. It is alleged that during the pendency of the petition, Surinder Kaur and Parkash Chand petitioners got published a Press Note in Punjabi Tribune dated 7.9.1986. Pritam Chand filed a complaint that due to publication of the news item, he had been defamed in the eyes of his relatives. When the police did not take any action, he has chosen to file the complaint.

After recording the preliminary evidence, the learned Judicial Magistrate concluded that the said news item cannot be stated to be defamatory. There is no sufficient ground for proceeding. Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed.

Pritam Chand filed a revision petition in the Court of Sessions at Hoshiarpur. It was heard and decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that there was sufficient evidence to proceed against Surinder Kaur and Parkash Chand but as against the Editor, Punjabi Tribune, there was no prima facie case. Accordingly, the revision petition was allowed as against the petitioners. The case was remitted to the Judicial Magistrate for further enquiry.

Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition has been filed by Parkash Chand and Surinder Kaur.

Learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset has drawn the attention of the Court towards the findings in the litigation between Surinder Kaur and her husband Ram Lal and also the observations made therein. But it becomes unnecessary to refer to those findings because they are inter se between Surinder kaur and her husband. Respondent Pritam Chand is not a party to that litigation. He cannot be bound to any such finding in which he is not a party. Those findings, therefore, would be incompetent as against Pritam Chand.

Learned counsel for the petitioners in that event urged that findings of the trial court in this regard cannot be sustained. In his opinion the learned Judicial Magistrate had rightly concluded that there was no case drawn against the petitioners. Section 203 and subsection (1) of section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would provide the answer and read :

"203. Dismissal of complaint. If, after considering the statements on oath (if any) of the complainant and of the witnesses and the result of the inquiry or investigation (if any) under Section 202, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceedings, he shall dismiss the complaint, and in every such case he shall briefly record his reasons for so doing.

.... ... .. ....

204(1). If in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding, and the case appears to be

(a) a summoncase, he shall issue his summons for the attendance of the accused, or

(b) a warrantcase, he may issue a warrant, or, if he thinks fit, a summons, for causing the accused to be brought or to appear at a certain time before such Magistrate or (if he has no jurisdiction himself) some other Magistrate having jurisdiction."

Reading of the aforesaid leaves no doubt that if there are no sufficient grounds for proceeding, the complaint shall be dismissed and if there are sufficient grounds for proceeding, the accused as such can be summoned or the warrants issued as the case may be. In other words, if prima facie case is made out, the necessary consequence that there are subsequent grounds of proceeding would arise, viceversa would also be true if no prima facie case is made out, then there are no grounds to proceed. The Supreme Court considered the said scope in the case of Chandra Deo Singh v. Prakash Chandra Bose and another, AIR 1963 SC 1430. In paragraph 12 it was held:

"Thus, where there is a prima facie case, even though much can be said on both sides, a committing Magistrate is bound to commit an accused for trial. All the greater reason, therefore, that where there is prima facie evidence, even though an accused may have a defence like that in the present case that the offence is committed by some other person or persons, the matter has to be left to be decided by the appropriate forum at the appropriate stage and issue of process cannot be refused."

Same view prevailed in the subsequent decision in the case of Balraj Khanna and others v. Moti Ram, AIR 1971 SC 1389. It is obvious from aforesaid that while seeing if prima facie case is made or not, it is not with an eye to see whether the conviction should be recorded or not. One has to see the material before the court and thereafter consider if prima facie case is made or not.

In the present case the news item that appeared is as under:

"A man and his daughter of village Jiwanpur Jattan (Saila Khurd) had levelled allegations that the inlaws of the daughter, who are residents of Mohalla Kamalpur, Hoshiarpur have made her life hell due to dowry. They have disclosed that Surinder Kaur was married on 28th February, 1982 to a Government Teacher named Ram Lal; that Surinder Kaur''s father Parkash Chand had spent dowry beyond his financial means but 5/6 months after the marriage, the family of the boy had started making demands for more money and after giving beating to the girl they had once attempted to burn her after sprinkling oil on her. After the birth of a daughter to Surinder Kaur, her father gave articles of the value of Rs. 5000/ but his soninlaw demanded money for scooter, frig and also for the construction of the house and asked the girl to fetch the same. For the last two years, she was living at the house of her father."

The learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly concluded on the basis of the material that was on the record and there was sufficient grounds to proceed against the petitioners. There is no reason to take a different view. When prima facie case was drawn, the learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly allowed the revision and remitted the case to the learned Judicial Magistrate. There is no merit in the revision petition.

For these reasons the revision petition fails and is dismissed.