Final Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 32Ct Cases600/2022
DINESH KOCHHAR Vs. SABITASUBUDHI
(Parliament Street)
05.04.2023
Order on Summoning
1. The present complaint is filed for offence punishable
under Section 500 IPC. Pre-summoning evidence was recorded
on 27.05.2022, in which the complainant examined himself as
CW1. The pre-summoning evidence was closed on the same day.
2. Arguments on the point of summoning were heard
on 01.09.2022. It is the case of the complainant that he was
employed as Section Officer in Ministry of Jal Shakti, Shram
Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi at the time of
commencement of the alleged offence. Later, the complainant
was transferred to National Mission for clean Ganga, India Gate,
New Delhi due to the allegations of the proposed accused who is
the wife of the complainant. It has been submitted that the
complainant got married to the proposed accused on 29.06.2020
at Arya Samaj Mandir, Model Town, Ghaziabad after meeting her
through matrimonial site. After the marriage, the proposed
accused allegedly started misbehaving with the complainant.
Further, the complainant also got an FIR registered under Section
498A IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Act. She then left the home of the
complainant on 28.08.2020. It has further been submitted by the
complainant that the proposed accused sent several e-mails on
19.01.2021, 01.07.2021 & 09.07.2021 to the complainant’s
-- 1 of 4 --
senior officers of the rank of Secretary, Director, Deputy
Secretary and under Secretary at Ministry of Jal Shakti where the
complainant was employed. The copy of the said e-mails had
been obtained by the complainant through RTI and the same are
filed on record.
3. The complainant has contended that the proposed
accused has lowered his image in society by writing the above-
mentioned e-mails. It has further been submitted that in the said
e-mails, the proposed accused has made derogatory remarks
against the complainant calling him a big level fraud. She has
further written in the e-mails that the complainant is habitual of
getting married with different girls and exploiting them. She has
also made allegations that the complainant is still searching for
other girls on wedding portal.
4. Section 499 of the IPC defines defamation. As per
the same, there are three essential ingredients in order to establish
the commission of the said offence. They are:-
i). an imputation or allegation made within an intention to harm
the person against whom it is made.
ii). the said imputation be made by words spoken, written, in
signs or in visible representation and
iii). publishing such imputation.
Apart from these Explanation 4 to Section 499 IPC
clearly states that “no imputation is said to harm a person’s
reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the
estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character
of that person.....”.
5. A bare perusal of the above-mentioned provision
shows that the alleged defamatory substance should actually be
-- 2 of 4 --
published and should be shown to have lowered the estimation of
the complainant in public eye. The allegedly defamatory e-mails
dated 19.01.2021, 09.07.2021 & 08.07.2021 are annexed with the
complaint. First of all, the said e-mails were not written by the
proposed accused for public consumption. The same was
addressed to the higher officials at Ministry of Water Resources.
In fact, the complainant obtained the same through RTI as details
of the same are filed on record. Further, as admitted by the
complainant himself, there is already an FIR registered against
him upon the complaint of proposed accused. It is not known as
to what has emerged from the investigation in that case or
whether the matter is pending for trial. This Court therefore,
cannot form an opinion regarding the falsity of the allegations
made by the proposed accused as it would tantamount to
interference in other criminal cases pending against the
complainant.
6. The complainant has only examined himself as CW1
in the pre-summoning evidence and did not bring on record the
testimony of even one other person who could buttress his
allegations. The condition imposed by Explanation 4 to Section
499 IPC as discussed above remains unsatisfied if the
complainant does not bring on record any witness who can
depose that the imputation lowered the image of the complainant
in the eyes of others. There is nothing on record or in the pre-
summoning evidence which can show that the reputation of the
complainant suffered because of the e-mails mentioned above.
7. In the recent judgment titled as “Yogesh Jagiya vs.
-- 3 of 4 --
Jindal Biochem Pvt. Ltd.” 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 562 dated
10.06.2022, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has observed that
summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter
and that the criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of
course. It is settled proposition of law that before summoning an
accused in a complaint case the entire material on record as well
as the pre-summoning evidence should be scrutinized and the
same should alteast prima facie disclose the commission of the
alleged offence. As discussed above, none of the said materials
satisfy the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section
499/500 IPC. Also, considering that the pending criminal case
against the complainant has not reached any logical conclusion, it
would be unjustified to summon the proposed accused for the
alleged offence of defamation as she herself would be a witness
in that case.
8. As no offence is disclosed in light of the above
discussion, the present complaint is dismissed under Section 203
Cr.P.C.
File be consigned to Record Room, after due
compliance if any.
(Anamika)
MM-06/PHC/ND/05.04.2023
-- 4 of 4 --