CRM-A-177-2021 (O& IN THE HIG Ashokdeep State of Punja CORAM: Present: GURVINDE 1. Aggrieved b Singh and PH the Judicial complaint fil has preferred 2. The complain (since deceas 500, 502, 506 of the Punjab enjoys a goo (O&M) ( 1 ) E HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES AT CHANDIGARH CRM Date o Singh Versus f Punjab & others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GU HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAS Mr. S.K.Bawa, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Prabhdeep Singh Dhaliwal, for respondent No.1. INDER SINGH GILL, J. ved by the acquittal of respondents and PHG Balbir Singh vide judgment dicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandha filed under Sections 499, 500, 50 ferred the instant appeal. mplainant instituted a complaint again deceased) and PHG Balbir Singh for 2, 506 IPC, wherein the complainant Punjab State Power Corporation posted a good reputation on account of his d ATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA GARH M-A-177-2021 (O&M) Date of Decision: 15.01.2025 ……....Appellant …….Respondents E GURVINDER SINGH GILL E JASJIT SINGH BEDI liwal, AAG, Punjab, ndents No.2 & 3, namely, Jarnail gment dated 08.03.2019 passed by landhar in respect of a criminal 00, 502, 506 IPC, the complainant t against Jarnail Singh, Ram Singh for offences under Sections 499, ainant stated that he is an employee posted at Alawalpur, Jalandhar and f his dedicated work and integrity. ity. VIMAL KUMAR 2025.01.17 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-A-177-2021 (O& He had filed Alawalpur, A (respondent officials used complainant Singh (respo hand in glov Jarnail Singh allegations a quarrelsome of public at l the office wh Jarnail Singh complainant Electricity D members of moved an ap (Rural) again each other le Police Office defamatory s officers. The accused, the agony and h statements w (O&M) ( 2 ) d filed a complaint against some po lpur, Adampur, who had been hara dent no.2) and Ram Singh (expire ls used to pressurize him to withdraw inant against the police employees. I (respondent no.3) was working in the n glove with the other accused. T Singh and Ram Singh tried to defame ions against him to the effect that lsome nature and that they used to say lic at large and in the presence of the where complainant was working. I Singh and Ram Singh even leveled all inant had misappropriated copper city Department and circulated their rs of the public in order to defame h an application to the Senior Superin against PHG Balbir Singh, then the ther leveled false defamatory allegat Officers. The accused are even allege tory statements before the employees s. The complainant alleged that on ac d, the complainant had suffered men and had gone in depression. It is a ents were published by the accused d me police officials of Police Post n harassing him. Jarnail Singh (expired) along with some other hdraw the complaint moved by the ees. It is alleged that PHG Balbir in the police department and was d. The complainant alleged that defame him by leveling defamatory that he is a drunkard and is of to say such things in the presence of the consumers who used to visit . It is alleged that the aforesaid led allegations to the effect that the opper and iron articles of the their joint statements amongst the fame him. When the complainant uperintendent of Police, Jalandhar en the accused in connivance with allegations against him before the alleged to have circulated the said oyees of his office including senior t on account of such conduct of the d mental harassment, tension and It is alleged that such defamatory used despite the fact that the same VIMAL KUMAR 2025.01.17 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-A-177-2021 (O& were not tru goodwill of th 3. The complai witness-box Satish Kuma Singh, AJE a 4. The trial Co accused orde Sections 499, trial. Since a abated. Notic Jarnail Singh not guilty and 5. The complain the witness- by him to SS dated 26.09.2 Ex.CW3, sta attendance re Balbir Singh Ex.CW11, Ex examine any record copie Mark-F. Pur (O&M) ( 3 ) ot true and were circulated in order ill of the complainant. omplainant, in his preliminary evid box as CW-1 and also examined CW Kumar, CW-4 Satnam Singh, CW-5 H AJE and CW-7 Mangat Ram, JE. ial Court upon finding sufficient gro d ordered for summoning them for 499, 500, 502, 506 IPC vide order d Since accused Ram Singh expired, the . Notice of accusation was served u Singh and PHG Balbir Singh on 21.12 lty and claimed trial. mplainant, in order to substantiate the -box as CW-1, wherein he prove to SSP (Rural) dated 06.09.2013 as 6.09.2013 as Ex.CW2, copy of appli 3, statements of accused as Ex.CW nce registers as Ex.CW6, Ex.CW7, Singh as Ex.CW9, copy of notice as 11, Ex.CW12 and Ex.CW13. The co e any other witness and closed his copies of power-cut register, comp Pursuant thereto, the statements of order to harm the reputation and y evidence, himself stepped into ned CW-2 Jaswinder Singh, CW-3 5 HC Tarsem Lal, CW-6 Satpal nt grounds to proceed against the m for offences punishable under rder dated 24.04.2018 so as to face ed, the proceedings qua him stood rved upon the other two namely, 21.12.2018 to which they pleaded te the charges, himself stepped into proved copy of application moved 13 as Ex.CW1, copy of complaint f application moved by accused as Ex.CW4 & Ex.CW5, copies of W7, Ex.CW8, statement of PHG ice as Ex.CW10, postal receipts as The complainant, however, did not ed his evidence while placing on complaint register as Mark-C to nts of the accused were recorded in VIMAL KUMAR 2025.01.17 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-A-177-2021 (O& terms of Sect accused, how 6. The trial Cou 7. The trial Co complainant and consequ 08.03.2019. 8. Learned coun submitted th manner in w defamatory s presence of h who used to c no evidence t (O&M) ( 4 ) f Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they pl d, however, did not choose to lead any al Court framed the following points 1. Whether the accused on frivolous complaint against or having reason to believe the reputation of the comp punishable under Section 50 2. Whether the accused on o sale printed substance c against complainant and punishable under Section 50 3. Whether the accused on the the complainant with dir committed offence punishab ial Court upon considering the evide inant had failed to establish the charge onsequently acquitted them vide . d counsel for the appellant, while as ted that the complainant had stated r in which the accused had been d tory statements in the presence of ce of his colleagues and also in the pre ed to come to the office where he was ence to the contrary, the statement co they pleaded false implication. The ad any evidence in defence. oints for determination: on 25.09.2013 moved a false and gainst complainant intending to harm elieve that such imputation will harm complainant and committed offence tion 500 IPC? on or before said date, offered for nce containing defamatory matter and thereby committed offence tion 502 IPC? on the said date, criminally intimated th dire consequences and thereby nishable under Section 506 IPC? evidence on record held that the charges framed against the accused vide impugned judgment dated hile assailing acquittal of accused, stated in detail with regard to the een defaming him by publishing ce of members of public, in the presence of various consumers, e was working and that there being ent could not have been discarded. VIMAL KUMAR 2025.01.17 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-A-177-2021 (O& It has been s his integrity circumstance committed of and also for o 9. We have hear record of the 10. Before proce apposite to b offence unde under: “499. read, o imputat reason t is said, decease living, a relative concern express unless t the mor person (O&M) ( 5 ) been submitted that the allegations le tegrity were absolutely baseless a stances, the accused ought to have tted offence under Section 499 IPC p o for offences punishable under sectio heard learned counsel for the appell of the case. proceeding to consider the evidence te to bear in mind the provisions of S e under ‘defamation’ has been defined 499. Defamation — Whoever, by words ead, or by signs or by visible represent putation concerning any person intending eason to believe that such imputation will ha said, except in the cases hereinafter except Explanation 1.—It may amount to de eceased person, if the imputation would ha ving, and is intended to be hurtful to the f elatives. Explanation 2.—It may amount to d oncerning a company or an association or co Explanation 3.—An imputation in xpressed ironically, may amount to defamat Explanation 4.—No imputation is sa nless that imputation directly or indirectly, e moral or intellectual character of that pers erson in respect of his caste or of his cal leveled against him as regards less and false and under these have been held guilty for having IPC punishable under Section 500, section 502 & 506 IPC. appellant and have also perused the idence led by the appellant, it is s of Section 499 IPC, wherein the defined. Section 499 IPC reads as words either spoken or intended to be presentations, makes or publishes any tending to harm, or knowing or having will harm, the reputation of such person, excepted, to defame that person. t to defamation to impute anything to a uld harm the reputation of that person if the fellings of his family or other near nt to defamation to make an imputation n or collection of persons as such. on in the form of an alternative or famation. n is said to harm a person's reputation, ectly, in the estimation of others, lowers at person, or lowers the character of that his calling, or lowers the credit of that VIMAL KUMAR 2025.01.17 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-A-177-2021 (O& person, state, or 11. From a perus in order to e basic ingredie (i) (ii) (iii) 12. Section 499 enumerated himself stepp witness to l allegations. defamatory w public and a statements as upon the com accused had the defamato placed on rec accordance w (O&M) ( 6 ) erson, or causes it to be believed that the bo tate, or in a state generally considered as dis perusal of Section 499 IPC, it can be r to establish his case would be requ ngredients: making or publishing of any complainant; such imputation must have been signs either written, spoken or vi such imputation must be made harm or with the knowledge or h it will harm the reputation of the 499 IPC also provides for certai rated therein. In the instant case, f stepping into witness-box as CW- s to lend corroboration to his case ions. Since it is the specific case tory words were uttered in the pres and also in the presence of his colle as regards his reputation were also he complainant to have examined so d had made such statements or to who famatory statements. Although the on record certain documents, but the s ance with law and some of them were the body of that person is in a loathsome as disgraceful.” can be discerned that a complainant required to prove the following f any imputation concerning the e been made by the use of words or n or visible; and made with an intention to cause ge or having reasons to believe that of the concerned. certain exceptions as have been , the complainant apart from -1 has not examined any other s case so as to substantiate the case of the complainant that the e presence of the members of the s colleagues and that various false re also circulated, it was incumbent some person before whom the o whom the accused had circulated gh the complainant/appellant has t the same have not been proved in were in fact not even exhibited. VIMAL KUMAR 2025.01.17 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-A-177-2021 (O& 13. In the absenc the complain which it cou defamatory s the appellant from being su reached at th the allegation same. There 15.01.2025 Vimal (O&M) ( 7 ) absence of any evidence to lend corro mplainant and in the absence of any it could be inferred that the accused tory statements against the complaina pellant/complainant are absolutely ho eing substantiated in any manner. Th d at the conclusion that the complaina gations of defamation, this Court does There is no merit in the appeal and the (GUR Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: d corroboration to the statement of f any other reliable evidence from ccused had indulged in publishing plainant, the allegations leveled by ely hollow and have remained far The trial Court having correctly plainant had failed to substantiate rt does not find any infirmity in the the same is hereby dismissed. GURVINDER SINGH GILL) JUDGE (JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE ned: Yes/No Yes/No VIMAL KUMAR 2025.01.17 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document