AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Prafulla C. Pant, J.—Heard.
By means of this petition, moved u/s 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has sought quashing of proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 277 of 2010, Amar Singh vs. Smt Rekha Raghuwanshi relating to offence punishable u/s 500 of I.P.C., pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kotdwar.
Brief facts of the case are that respondent no. 4 Amar Singh filed criminal complaint before the Magistrate on 03.04.2010, alleging that petitioner Smt Rekha Raghuwanshi and her husband Sushil Kumar Raghuwanshi, are making false complaints to the authorities concerned, against the complainant, thereby, he is defamed. It is alleged that the petitioner''s reputation has got lowered down due to the defamatory representations made by the petitioner Smt Rekha Raghuwanshi, and her husband Suhil Kumar Raghuwanshi. The trial court after recording the statement of the complainant Amar Singh u/s 200 of Cr.P.C., and that of witnesses namely Shashi Bala, Navbahar and Sarfaraz u/s 202 of Cr.P.C., summoned the petitioner Smt Rekha Raghuwanshi to face the trial in respect of offence punishable u/s 500 of I.P.C. Aggrieved by said summoning order dated 17.06.2010, this petition is filed.
It is pertinent to mention here that learned counsel for the parties have admitted that on same set of facts, another criminal complaint was filed against the husband of the petitioner i.e. Sushil Kumar Raghuwanshi, and he too is summoned in said case, to face the trial in respect of offence punishable u/s 500 of I.P.C. It is also relevant to mention here that the petitioner''s husband Sushil Kumar Raghuwanshi said to have filed separate Criminal Misc. Application u/s 482 of Cr.P.C., and the same was dismissed, by this Court at the admission stage, as conceded by learned counsel for the parties.
In the above circumstances, only question to be considered before this court is, as to whether, by the impugned summoning order as against Smt Rekha Raghuwanshi to face the trial in respect of offence punishable u/s 500 of I.P.C., suffers from any illegality, or not.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that representations to the authorities concerned, were said to have been made by the husband of the petitioner, for which she cannot be prosecuted. In reply to this, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 submitted that some of the complaints are also made by the petitioner. At this stage, this court has to examine the facts, as admitted in the criminal complaint itself. In para -2 of the criminal complaint, it is specifically mentioned that on 18.05.2009, 02.05.2009, 30.08.2009 and 02.11.2009, the complaints were sent against complainant (respondent no.4) to various authorities by the husband of the petitioner. There is no mention of any specific complaint made by the petitioner. As such, it appears that the trial court, without looking into the facts, as to what was the complaint made by the present petitioner, and with what allegation against the complainant (respondent no. 4) which could be said to be defamatory, summoned her to face the trial in respect of offence punishable u/s 500 I.P.C. If the husband of the petitioner is already facing trial in respect of the alleged complaint made by him, summoning the petitioner for same set of facts, in respect of the act of her husband, is nothing but abuse of process of law.
Apart from the above, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complaints (representations) if any made by the petitioner to the authorities concerned are covered under exception VIII of section 499 of I.P.C., as such, even if the allegation taken as true, the offence punishable u/s 500 I.P.C., is not constituted as against the present petitioner. However, this court is of the view that the exception VIII given in Section 499 I.P.C., is not absolute, and only in respect of bonafide complaints defence can be taken on that ground.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, and after going though the papers on record, in substance, this court is satisfied that the complainant (respondent No. 4) has attempted to prosecute the petitioner for the alleged act of her husband, for which, he is already facing trial in a separate complaint. In the circumstances, the prosecution of the present petitioner is liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, the petition u/s 482 of Cr.P.C., is allowed. The proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 277 of 2010, Amar Singh vs. Smt Rekha Raghuwanshi and another, relating to offence punishable u/s 500 of I.P.C., pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kotdwar, are hereby quashed. It is observed that this order shall not prejudice to the rights of the parties in the case filed by respondent no. 4 against Sushil Kumar Raghuwanshi, pending before the trial court. (Stay Vacation Application No. 583 of 2011 also stands disposed of).