Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:41362 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 630 of 2025 Reserved on: 18.11.2025 Decided on: 03.12.2025 _____________________________________________________ Rajesh Kumar and others ...Petitioners Versus Asha Devi …Respondent _____________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge 1 Whether approved for reporting? _____________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Mr. Kush Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent: Nemo. Sushil Kukreja, Judge The present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioners-accused persons under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ( for short, ‘BNSS’) against order dated 05.08.2025, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2 Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, HP, in Case No.63-3 of 25/24, whereby the charges under Sections 499, 500, 504 and 506, read with Section 120B of 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:41362 ) the Indian Penal Code (IPC) have been framed against them by the learned Trial Court. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned order dated 05.08.2025, passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to the law, facts and evidence on record as the alleged statements of the witnesses, even if assumed to be true, do not satisfy the essential ingredients of defamation as defined under Section 499 of IPC as the allegations are vague, general in nature and fall within the exceptions to Section 499, IPC. He further contended that no evidence or prima facie case of any intentional provocation to cause breach of peace is on record and mere allegations of insulting words/comments do not constitute an offence under Sections 504 and 506, IPC. He also contended that the complainant did not examine all cited witnesses and selective evidence could not have formed the basis of the charges. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and also gone through the material available on record. 4. In the present case, perusal of the impugned order dated 05.08.2025, shows that after recording its, prima facie, 2 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:41362 ) satisfaction on the basis of the evidence led by the complainant, the learned Trial Court had proceeded to frame charges against the petitioners/ accused persons for the offences under Sections 499, 500, 504 and 506 read with Section 120B, IPC on the basis of the evidence led by the complainant. All the grounds, which the petitioners want to agitate, are open to be taken at the time of evidence/trial. At the stage of framing of the charges, the Court has to see as to whether there is any prima facie material for proceeding with the case. 5. As such, in the considered opinion of this Court, all the defences, which the petitioners want to raise, can be raised and established by them before the learned Trial Court during the course of the trial. As observed earlier, at this stage, the learned Trial Court has prima facie found enough material for framing the charges against the petitioners-accused persons. Hence, I do not find any merit in the instant petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. 6. Consequently, in view of the above discussion, the present revision petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners- 3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:41362 ) accused persons are at liberty to raise all the grounds, which have been raised in the present petition, during the course of trial before the learned Trial Court. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge December 03, 2025 (V.Himalvi) 4