2026:HHC:18 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 196 of 2014 Reserved on: 15.12.2025 Date of Decision: 01.01.2026 Kuldip Kumar ..Appellant Versus Subhash Chand & others ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant : Mr Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr Dheeraj K Vashisht, Advocate. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31.05.2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. II, Amb, District Una, H.P. (learned Trial Court ) vide which, the respondents (accused before learned Trial Court) were acquitted of 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 reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:18 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the complainant filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 500 of the IPC. It was asserted that the complainant was posted as a constable in the Himachal Pradesh Police. Mulak Raj filed an application against accused accused Ram Kishan before Station House Officer (SHO) Amb, District Una, H.P. The SHO directed the complainant to bring the parties to the Police Station. The complainant went to Village Nakroh and told Ram Kishan that he was called in connection with the application filed by Mulak Raj. Accused No.1 and 2 abused that the complainant and they caught hold of him by his neck. The complainant told the accused that he would take legal action against them. The accused apologised in writing. Accused Ram Kishan, accused No.1 (since deceased) and Subash Chand, accused No.2, filed false complaints against the complainant before Deputy Superintendent of Police (Dy.S.P.), Amb, District Una, H.P., alleging that the complainant had snatched ₹ 2,000/- from them. Dy. S.P. transferred the complainant to Police Lines Una, conducted an inquiry and found the complaint of the accused to be false. Accused No. 3 to 5 published false news in 3 2026:HHC:18 Punjab Kesari and Divya Himachal, which lowered the estimation of the complainant in the public; hence, a complaint was filed against the accused for taking action as per law. 3. Learned Trial Court recorded the preliminary evidence and found sufficient reason to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, notice of accusation was put to them for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 500 of the IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The complainant examined HHC Sada Shiv (CW-1), himself (CW-2) and Neelam Sharma (CW-3) to prove his case. 5. The accused, in their statements recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., admitted that the complainant was posted as a constable in H.P. Police and that he was sent to call Ram Kishan for inquiry. They stated that a true complaint was filed against the complainant. The news item was authentic, and it was based upon the complaint made by accused No.1 and 2. They relied upon some documents in their defence. 6. Learned Trial Court held that the complainant had failed to examine any witness to corroborate his version. He relied upon entry (Ext.CW-1/A), in which it was mentioned that 4 2026:HHC:18 many people were present on the spot. No witness to the compromise was produced before the Court. Neelam Sharma admitted that Mulak Raj, at whose instance Ram Kishan was called, was her father-in-law, and she was an interested witness. A complaint made to a higher official does not amount to any defamation; therefore, the complaint was dismissed. 7. Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court, the complainant filed the present appeal, asserting that the learned Trial Court erred in appreciating the material on record. It was undisputed that the complainant was serving in the Police department, and he was directed to visit the spot to inform accused Ram Kishan about the complaint filed against him. Accused Ram Kishan and Subhash Chand misbehaved with him, and subsequently compromised the matter. The contents of the compromise corroborate the complainant’s version. The other accused No. 2 to 5, published false news of the incident, which lowered the estimation of the complainant in the eyes of the public. Therefore, it was prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. 5 2026:HHC:18 8. I have heard Mr Onkar Jairath, learned counsel for the appellant /complainant and Mr Dheeraj K. Vashisht, learned counsel for the respondents/accused. 9. Mr Onkar Jairath, learned counsel for the appellant /complainant, submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in acquitting the accused. There was sufficient material on record to show that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 had made a false complaint against the complainant. The complaint was published in the newspaper, and it lowered the estimation of the complainant in the eyes of the general public; therefore, he prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. 10. Mr Dheeraj K. Vashisht, learned counsel for the accused/respondents, submitted that the filing of the complaint to the superior officer is covered under the exception to Section 499 of IPC. The other accused had merely published the contents of the complaint in good faith. Learned Trial Court had taken a reasonable view while acquitting the accused, and no interference is required with the judgment of the learned Trial Court. 6 2026:HHC:18 11. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 12. The present appeal has been filed against a judgment of acquittal. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 176: (2025) 5 SCC 433 that the Court can interfere with a judgment of acquittal if it is patently perverse, is based on misreading/omission to consider the material evidence and reached at a conclusion which no reasonable person could have reached. It was observed at page 440: “12. It could thus be seen that it is a settled legal position that the interference with the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial judge would be warranted by the High Court only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; that the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and that no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record.” 13. This position was reiterated in P. Somaraju v. State of A.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2291, wherein it was observed: “ 12. To summarise, an Appellate Court undoubtedly has full power to review and reappreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal under Sections 378 and 386 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. However, due to the reinforced or ‘double’ presumption of innocence after acquittal, interference must be limited. If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the record, the acquittal 7 2026:HHC:18 should not be disturbed. Judicial intervention is only warranted where the Trial Court's view is perverse, based on misreading or ignoring material evidence, or results in a manifest miscarriage of justice. Moreover, the Appellate Court must address the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal before reversing it and assigning its own. A catena of the recent judgments of this Court has more firmly entrenched this position, including, inter alia, Mallappa v. State of Karnataka 2024 INSC 104, Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund v. The State of Madhya Pradesh 2024 INSC 258, Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka 2024 INSC 320, and Constable 907 Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand 2025 INSC 114.” 14. The present appeal has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 15. Kuldeep Kumar (CW-1) stated that the accused made a complaint against him to his superior officer regarding the demand of ₹2000/- and the beatings given to them. Dy. S.P. conducted an inquiry and found the complaint to be false. 16. The complainant is aggrieved by the publication of the news item in the newspaper. The news item in Punjab Kesari reads that Dy. S.P. Amb, Varinder Tomar, confirmed that the allegation regarding the snatching of money was found to be false after the inquiry. This news item was published at the instance of Dy. S.P. and not at the instance of the accused. Thus, the accused cannot be held liable for the publication of the news 8 2026:HHC:18 item. The new items mentions that the complainant was exonerated, which does not amount to defamation. 17. Exception 8 to Section 499 of the IPC reads that if the accusation was made in good faith and was directed to a person who had lawful authority over the subject matter of the accusation, it would not constitute defamation. In the present case, Dy.S.P. had lawful authority over the complainant and the complaint made to him would be covered under the exception. 18. The other news items read that the Ram Kishan had made a complaint to Dy. S.P regarding beatings given to him. The first exception to Section 499 of the IPC provides that it is not defamation to impute anything to a person if it concerns the public good. In the present case, the publication concerned a complaint made to the police and was true because such a complaint was, in fact, made to the police. It was made for the public good to make them aware of the activities of the Police and was covered under the exception. 19. Neelam Sharma (CW-2) stated that the complainant told the accused Nos. 1 and 2 that they were being called to the police station. The accused started abusing the complainant. Subash Chand caught hold of the complainant’s collar. The 9 2026:HHC:18 matter was reconciled between the parties, and a compromise (Ext. CW-1/A) was executed. The complainant, Kuldeep Kumar, admitted in his cross-examination that he had no authority to execute the compromise (Ext. CW-1/A). He volunteered to say that the parties had themselves entered into a compromise. 20. This compromise regarding the giving of abuses to the complainant does not affect the correctness or otherwise of the complaint made to the police by the accused or its publication. 21. Neelam Sharma (CW2) stated in her cross- examination that the complainant, Mulak Raj, was her father- in-law. Thus, the learned Trial Court had rightly held that she was not an independent witness. 22. Therefore, the learned Trial court rightly held that the present case falls under the exceptions to Section 499 of the IPC. This was a reasonable view based on the material placed before the learned Trial Court, and no interference is required with it while deciding an appeal against acquittal. 23. No other point was urged. 24. In view of the above, the present appeal fails and it is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 10 2026:HHC:18 25. In view of the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 481 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) the respondents are directed to furnish bail bonds in the sum of ₹50,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Registrar (Judicial) of this Court/learned Trial Court which shall be effective for six months with a stipulation that in the event of a Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment or on grant of the leave, the respondents on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 26. A copy of the judgment, along with the record of the learned Trial Court, be sent back forthwith. (Rakesh Kainthla) 01st January, 2026 Judge (ravinder)