CRM-M-35576-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-35576-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 06.07.2026 Sanjay Brahmchari ………Petitioner Versus Naresh and others ..….Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Abhay Gupta, Advocate, Legal Aid Counsel, for the petitioner. VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J (Oral). The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 03.02.2026 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, dismissing the revision petition against the order dated 07.12.2024 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Kanina, vide which the complaint under Sections 499 and 500 IPC filed by the petitioner was dismissed. 2. The facts in brief, are that the petitioner had filed a complaint under Sections 499 and 500 IPC alleging that in the written statement filed by the respondents in Civil Suit No. 276 of 2022, the said respondents had made defamatory averments against him as regards his behavior as a Sarpanch of the village and further to the effect that on account of his misbehaviour DALBIR SINGH 2026.07.10 11.10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-35576-2026 (O&M) -2- with a woman of the Scheduled Caste, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act and that owing to his money power, he was engaged in wrong doings. 2.1 Preliminary evidence was led by the petitioner- complainant. 2.2 After taking into consideration the preliminary evidence and the arguments addressed, the trial Court vide order dated 07.12.2024, found that there was no material on the case file to proceed against the accused persons for commission of the alleged offence of defamation and accordingly dismissed the complaint. 2.3 Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Sessions Court. However, vide order dated 03.02.2026, the same was dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Narnual, leading to the filing of the instant petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while passing the impugned orders, both Courts did not take into consideration that the averments made in the written statement filed by the respondents, were defamatory in nature, inasmuch as the same were made with an intention to harm his reputation, as he was holding a respectable position. It is further argued that there was no occasion for the respondents to level allegations against the conduct of the petitioner as a Sarpanch and his having been suspended and further a criminal DALBIR SINGH 2026.07.10 11.10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-35576-2026 (O&M) -3- case having been registered against him, particularly when, these averments were totally irrelevant to the controversy involved in the civil suit. 4.1 Learned counsel further argues that both Courts failed to take into consideration that the very tone and tenor of the averments made in the written statement, amounted to defamation and thus, instead of dismissing the complaint, the respondents-accused ought to have been summoned to face trial. It is further argued that at the time of summoning of the accused, only a prima-facie case is to be seen and hence, considered from that perspective, the impugned orders are not sustainable. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. The trial Court, after having considered the preliminary evidence led by the complainant and the submissions made by learned counsel for the complainant- petitioner, found that the complainant himself mentioned in his complaint about the criminal proceedings initiated against him under the SC & ST Act and had also mentioned that the he was suspended from the post of Sarpanch of village on 04.11.2014, claiming the same to have been done under political pressure. It was further found that when the civil suit was pending between the parties, it was for the said Court to decide on the basis of evidence whether or not the averments made in the written statement were true and that simultaneous criminal proceedings for defamation, could not be allowed to proceed. DALBIR SINGH 2026.07.10 11.10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-35576-2026 (O&M) -4- 7. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, while upholding the said findings recorded by the trial Court, observed as under:- “12. So far as the present case is concerned, admittedly, a civil suit titled Sanjay Vs. Naresh Kumar and others, was filed by the revisionist and in that civil suit, respondents have filed their joint written statement and counter claim vide Ex.P4. Ex. P4, respondents had mentioned about registration of criminal case under The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (here-in-after referred to as SC/ST Act) against revisionist and also mentioned that revisionist is having political approach and on the basis of money, he used to get done wrong acts. 13. Perusal of Ex. P3 i.e. cancellation report in FIR No.114 dated 5.5.2011 under section 3 SC/ST Act reveals that FIR No.114 dated 5.5.2011 was got registered against the revisionist by one Jai Parkash son of Leela Ram. Though, police had filed cancellation report in FIR No.114 dated 5.5.2011 but it is fact that it was registered against the revisionist. So, mere mentioning the fact with regard to registration of FIR against the revisionist under SC/ST Act is not in itself falls within the ambit of imputation as mentioned in under section 499 IPC. Moreover, civil suit in which respondents had filed their joint written statement and counter claim has not been decided on merits by the civil DALBIR SINGH 2026.07.10 11.10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-35576-2026 (O&M) -5- court so far. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be inferred that contents of Ex. P4 are false and defamatory.” 8. The petitioner had filed the complaint alleging defamation qua the averments made by the respondents in the written statement filed to the civil suit instituted by the petitioner. Both Courts rightly found that the averments made in the written statement did not amount to defamation, especially when the complainant himself had mentioned in his complaint about the criminal proceedings initiated against him and his suspension from the post of Sarpanch of the village. 9. No doubt, at the time of passing the summoning order, the Court is to see whether or not a prima-facie case is made out against the accused, but the fact remains that there must be sufficient material on record to justify the said course of action. In the instant case, as noticed above, both Courts rightly recorded a finding that the material and evidence available on record, was insufficient to proceed against the accused. 10. In view of the above, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is hereby dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. (VIKRAM AGGARWAL) JUDGE 06.07.2026 ds Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No DALBIR SINGH 2026.07.10 11.10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document