1 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:31740 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.M.O. No. 820 of 2025 Reserved on: 29.08.2025 Decided on: 16.09.2025 Dinesh Katoch ...…. Petitioner Versus Paramjeet Kaur …...Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner: Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition against the order dated 30.05.2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jawali, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh (learned Trial Court) vide which notice of accusation was put to the petitioner for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.) 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes. 2 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:31740 ) 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the complainant filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 500 of the IPC. It was asserted that the complainant was elected as Pardhan of Gram Panchayat, Sidhpurghad, Development Block, Fatehpur, District Kangra, H.P. in the year 2016. She belongs to a respectable family. The accused sent a complaint to the Chief Minister Helpline stating that a tank was stated to have been constructed by the Panchayat on the land of Sehdev Singh. However, this fact was only mentioned in the papers, and no tank was constructed on the spot. Sehdev Singh was not the owner of any land. ₹50,000/- was received from the Block Development Officer (BDO) for the construction of a tank. Information was obtained under The Right to Information Act (RTI). An action should be taken in the matter. The accused started proclaiming that he had made a complaint against Pradhan and that she would be removed from her post. BDO, Fatehpur, inquired into the matter and found that the tank was constructed on the land of Ratna Mankotia, who had executed a power of attorney in the name of her husband, Sehdev Singh. No application under RTI was filed by the accused. The accused had made a false 3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:31740 ) complaint to defame the complainant. Therefore, it was prayed that an action be taken in the matter. 3. Learned Trial Court took cognisance of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC and put notice of accusation to the accused vide order dated 30.05.2025. 4. Being aggrieved by the filing of the complaint and putting of notice of accusation, the accused has filed the present petition asserting that there is no defamation in the present case. Learned Trial Court erred in putting the notice of accusation to the accused. The requirements of Section 499 of the IPC were not satisfied. A blanket statement could not justify the issuance of a summons in the present case. A telephonic complaint was made to the Chief Minister Helpline without disclosing the name of any person. The complaint was filed by the complainant to settle her personal scores with the accused. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court putting notice of accusation to the accused be set aside. 5. Mr. Surinder Saklani, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the contents of the complaint do not 4 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:31740 ) show the commission of any offence. A complaint made to the Chief Minister Helpline is covered under Explanation I & II to Section 499 of the IPC, and the learned Trial Court failed to notice this fact. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. 6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 7. The complainant specifically mentioned that the accused had made a complaint to the Chief Minister Helpline regarding the construction of a tank in the papers, but not on the spot. However, the tank was constructed by the Panchayat on the spot, and this fact was verified by B.D.O. in an enquiry. At this stage, the averments in the complaint are to be taken as correct. They show that the accused made a false complaint on the Chief Minister Helpline that no tank was constructed by the Panchayat, and ₹50,000/- sanctioned by the B.D.O for the construction of the tank were misappropriated. This complaint imputed a commission of an offence to the Gram Panchayat, and was prima facie defamatory. 5 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:31740 ) 8. It was submitted that the name of any person was not mentioned, and the complainant is not justified in making the complaint before the Court. This submission is not acceptable. The accused specifically mentioned in his complaint made to the Chief Minister Helpline that the Panchyat was stated to have constructed a tank. The complainant is the Pardhan of the Gram Panchayat. Panchayat acts through its Pradhan, and when it is suggested that Panchayat had constructed the tank, it meant that the Pradhan had constructed the tank on behalf of the Panchayat. Therefore, even if the complainant’s name was not mentioned, the complaint suggested her role in the construction of the tank, and the complainant had a locus standi to file the complaint. 9. It was submitted that the complaint made to Chief Minister Helpline is protected under exceptions I & II of Section 499 of the IPC. First exception deals with a true imputation, and the second exception deals with an opinion expressed in good faith regarding the conduct of a public servant in the discharge of public functions. The complaint filed before the Court specifically stated that the imputation was false, as the tank was constructed; hence, the exception one is not attracted. The question whether the complaint was made in good faith or 6 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:31740 ) not is a question of fact which can only be decided by leading the evidence. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Iveco MagirusBrandschutztechnik GMBH v. Nirmal Kishore Bhartiya, (2024) 2 SCC 86, that the Magistrate is bound to look into the complaint and the accompanying material. If the material discloses the applicability of any exception, the Magistrate is bound to consider it, but if there is no such material, it can only be considered if brought on record by the accused. It was observed:- “60. What the law imposes on the Magistrate as a requirement is that he is bound to consider only such of the materials that are brought before him in terms of Sections 200 and 202 as well as any applicable provision of a statute, and what is imposed as a restriction by law on him is that he is precluded from considering any material not brought on the record in a manner permitted by the legal process. As a logical corollary to the above proposition, what follows is that the Magistrate, while deciding whether to issue the process, is entitled to form a view looking into the materials before him. If, however, such materials themselves disclose a complete defence under any of the Exceptions, nothing prevents the Magistrate, upon application of judicial mind, from acceding to accord the benefit of such Exception to prevent a frivolous complaint from triggering an unnecessary trial. xxxxx 62. In the context of a complaint of defamation, at the stage, the Magistrate proceeds to the issue process, he has to form his opinion based on the allegations in the complaint and other material (obtained through the process referred to in Section 200/Section 202) as to 7 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:31740 ) whether “sufficient ground for proceeding” exists as distinguished from “sufficient ground for conviction”, which has to be left for determination at the trial and not at the stage when the process is issued. Although there is nothing in the law that in express terms mandates the Magistrate to consider whether any of the Exceptions to Section 499IPC are attracted, there is no bar either. After all, what is “excepted” cannot amount to defamation on the very terms of the provision. We do realise that more often than not, it would be difficult to form an opinion that an Exception is attracted at that juncture because neither a complaint for defamation (which is not a regular phenomenon in the criminal courts) is likely to be drafted with contents, nor are statements likely to be made on oath and evidence adduced, giving an escape route to the accused at the threshold. However, we hasten to reiterate that it is not the law that the Magistrate is in any manner precluded from considering if at all any of the Exceptions is attracted in a given case; the Magistrate is under no fetter from so considering, more so because being someone who is legally trained, it is expected that while issuing process he would have a clear idea of what constitutes defamation. If, in the unlikely event, the contents of the complaint and the supporting statements on oath as well as reports of investigation/inquiry reveal a complete defence under any of the Exceptions to Section 499IPC, the Magistrate, upon due application of judicial mind, would be justified to dismiss the complaint on such ground and it would not amount to an act in excess of jurisdiction if such dismissal has the support of reasons.” 10. In the present case, the complaint does not show the applicability of any explanation; therefore, the learned Magistrate could not have considered it. 11. A heavy reliance was placed upon various documents annexed to the present petition. However, it is impermissible to 8 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:31740 ) look into any material which does not amount to part of the record of the learned Trial Court while deciding the question of framing the charges. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Iveco (supra) that the High Court cannot enlarge the scope of inquiry under Section 482 of CrPC by including the material not placed before the learned Magistrate. It was observed: “63. Adverting to the aspect of exercise of jurisdiction by the High Courts under Section 482CrPC, in a case where the offence of defamation is claimed by the accused to have not been committed based on any of the Exceptions and a prayer for quashing is made, law seems to be well settled that the High Courts can go no further and enlarge the scope of inquiry if the accused seeks to rely on materials which were not there before the Magistrate. This is based on the simple proposition that what the Magistrate could not do, the High Courts may not do. We may not be understood to undermine the High Courts' powers saved by Section 482CrPC; such powers are always available to be exercised ex debito justitiae, i.e. to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the High Courts exist. However, the tests laid down for quashing an FIR or criminal proceedings arising from a police report by the High Courts in the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482CrPC not being substantially different from the tests laid down for quashing a process issued under Section 204 read with Section 200, the High Courts on recording due satisfaction are empowered to interfere if on a reading of the complaint, the substance of statements on oath of the complainant and the witness, if any, and documentary evidence as produced, no offence is made out and that proceedings, if allowed to continue, would amount to an abuse of the legal process. This, too, would 9 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:31740 ) be impermissible if the justice of a given case does not overwhelmingly so demand.” 12. Therefore, it is impermissible to look into the documents annexed to the petition. 13. No other point was urged. 14. In view of the above, the present petition fails and it is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. The observations made hereinbefore shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 16 September 2025. (yogesh)